Are there any wikipedians or anyone understands wikipedia?

[جوري]

I see no reason to trash it.

I see plenty--and have linked to plenty and continue to see plenty wrong-- will take more than 'I averred its eternal verities by my word which is law' to convince us that it is anything but just that-- trash!

And again I welcome you to use it.. I have no quarrels with you.. I have stated my reasons as to why I don't, and why I advise anyone serious enough about their work not to! I've presented articles.. You have come and declared some covert objectives. I am not quite sure for what intent?--I hardly think a testament to signify massive approval. Or that people will really go by either objectives.. on some level it is insulting to people's intelligence!

Anyhow.. I get tired of debating back and forth to what seems to me a point of view rather than a fact-- and I see this played successively on various topics.. sometimes a person should just know when it is time to quit!

peace!

 

[Science101]

WikiPedia has an excellent entry on Evolution. Seriously! It's one of the best discussions on the internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

:happy:

P.S. I couldn't resist that one!

My point is that some (notice I said "some") of their entries are very good, even if you think they are trash.

Anyway, I'm done arguing. But if you want me to post another good entry that makes Wiki look good then let me know.

 

[Anwarica]

Here's how Wiki handles it. I do have to say that providing both sides of the issue is not a bad idea.

I agree, but only when you provide a reasonable site .. how does it make sense when I access a site about the bible talking about scientific issues in Islam and even doesn't provide proper scientific data in this issue nor in other issues
This makes me wonder, shall I create a personal site and write whatever I want and cite it in wikipedia in many topics?

That's another religion charged topic that could be in dispute for ages to come. But if you can cite verifiable manuscripts written in that period that would prove it either way then it would be hard for anyone to challenge.

well, we do have the evidence already:
Quran (2:256) There is no compulsion and coercion in regard to religion.
Also, we can use live evidences in Indonesia (did any army went their and forced them to convert to Islam?) .. that word "forced" was put not for a religious issue, but rather for a political issue

 

[Science101]

I agree, but only when you provide a reasonable site .. how does it make sense when I access a site about the bible talking about scientific issues in Islam and even doesn't provide proper scientific data in this issue nor in other issues
This makes me wonder, shall I create a personal site and write whatever I want and cite it in wikipedia in many topics?

I just did a little investigating. Their story holds water. Here's a book that describes the human embryo, notice the date of the author:

Claudius Galen (129-210 A.D.) writes the book "On the Formation of the Foetus" in Rome, describing the placenta and embryonic membranes.

http://alexandria-respectlife.org/embryogenesis.aspx

I could not find the text of the book, but the title is specific enough that we can assume that it includes what is found in the Quran. In this case there is credible evidence to back up their claims. To be fair, it must be included. But not all of their material passes review, some of it has no credible evidence to back it up.

well, we do have the evidence already:
Quran (2:256) There is no compulsion and coercion in regard to religion.
Also, we can use live evidences in Indonesia (did any army went their and forced them to convert to Islam?) .. that word "forced" was put not for a religious issue, but rather for a political issue

You would need better evidence than a scriptural passage. Good ones would be numerous diaries of people who converted explaining why they did so, letters from people explaining the situation, and other eye witness accounts. Without them, the actual events are anyone's guess. And yes, religious issues are often used for political purposes. It's very annoying. Normally all sides of a religious issue do that.

 

[Isambard]

I personally like wikipedia. Sure its not a scholarly source, but its a great introduction to a subject I may next to no knowledge about. I also use it to get a feel for certain books/movies/games I am thinking of buying and then go to amazon.com to see the reviews, prices etc.

I think that although its not as credibile as a book, there isnt man options for e-debates especially to open forums. Lets face it, if I wrote a 12pg article and cited some scholarly papers (ones I use tend to be around 15-100pgs) ppl will most likely ignore it or just make a single comment and not bother reading it. Its happened before and its incredibly irritating. I perfer then to use wikipedia (after reading the articles and comparing it to the info I have) as a layman's sumup of the pts I am trying to make. In that way anyone can follow along even if the info is a bit basic.

That aside, I see folks using numerous questionable sites to promote their viewpoint. As Science101 mentioned, this is typical of creationists and political extemists. Same goes with quoting material from psedo- Dr.s. Typically folks on an open forum wont bother to investigate beyond what has been presented. At least with wiki, everyone can follow along and not be lost by the language specific to a particular subject and trying to discern who is a legitamite scholar in a particular subject and who is just full of BS.

 

[wilberhum]

Late breaking news from www.conspiracytheory.com

In a CIA sponsored coup, wikipedia was overthrown by Encyclopedia Britannica.

The spokes person from Britannica said they expected to have all the errors removed wikipedia within 6 weeks and then it should become a trusted sight.

 

[Anwarica]

I could not find the text of the book, but the title is specific enough that we can assume that it includes what is found in the Quran. In this case there is credible evidence to back up their claims. To be fair, it must be included. But not all of their material passes review, some of it has no credible evidence to back it up.

I think it's not a problem to know there's a placenta .. but did anyone ever wrote the steps of embryonic formation correctly? if there's someone, Dr. Moor wouldn't have said this Quran is from God ..
Quran 23:14 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 Allah, the best to create!
Have a look at congealed blood, did anyone expect this?

You would need better evidence than a scriptural passage. Good ones would be numerous diaries of people who converted explaining why they did so, letters from people explaining the situation, and other eye witness accounts.

That's really easy
For this particular Article, can a recording of the optic church be enough when they say 80:200 Christians are converting to Islam every day?
or posting videos of new Muslim converts? individuals and families of course.

 

[Science101]

I think it's not a problem to know there's a placenta .. but did anyone ever wrote the steps of embryonic formation correctly?

That's what the title of the book suggests, and the link says.

if there's someone, Dr. Moor wouldn't have said this Quran is from God ..

Chances are, he might not have known about it.

Quran 23:14 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 Allah, the best to create!
Have a look at congealed blood, did anyone expect this?

I have studied embryology enough to know the basics. Hate to say it, but that is not accurate. One sperm cell enters the egg, dissolves, releasing its 23 chromosomes into the egg that also has 23 to make a full set of 46 chromosomes which makes a viable cell with the ability to divide into many more cells. The cell divides into a free-floating mass called a blastocyst as shown below (four of them are shown).

There is no blood in it. This blastocyst implants itself like a seed planted into the ground, then later grows blood vessels like roots to share the blood of the mother for oxygen and nutrients. It's not a blood clot, or made of sperm, it's a mass of cells that gets its nutrients from the egg cell they develop inside. Like a chicken egg, there is yolk inside, but no hard shell because it's not needed.

Bones are formed last. Cells that will divide to become bone find a comfortable place in the mass of cells but there is no bone formation until there are arms, legs, head, etc..

The Quran would at least have to explain what I just did for it to be a convincing description of a developing embryo. But there is no mention of sperm implantation, number of chromosomes in sperm and egg, or other important things one needs to know to understand the basics of embryology.

That's really easy
For this particular Article, can a recording of the optic church be enough when they say 80:200 Christians are converting to Islam every day?
or posting videos of new Muslim converts? individuals and families of course.

What is happening now or a statement from a religious leader would not be evidence due to their often saying things for political purposes. It would have to be from the time period in question and directly address why they are converting without the possibility that facts are not included. That's why you would need something like diaries of people who converted to find out if they were truly converting because they wanted to. It's very possible that they were being pressured to do so. Didn't they have to pay a special tax if they did not convert? Someone who could not afford that tax or other punishment would still be forced to convert against their will.

 

[Anwarica]

About the clot issue

The third meaning of the word alaqah is “blood clot.” We find that the external appearance of the embryo and its sacs during the alaqah stage is similar to that of a blood clot. This is due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo during this stage4 (see figure 4). Also during this stage, the blood in the embryo does not circulate until the end of the third week.5 Thus, the embryo at this stage is like a clot of blood.

Even the third meaning isn't wrong

As for the conversion to Islam in Egypt, if there's any documents or citations to be provided I think the ones who wrote "forced" are required to prove not us!
History shows you no campaigns went to the south east of Asia and not even immigrations .. how could all those countries turn to Islam? .. the same in Egypt, only 500 Arabians stayed .. how can 500 turn into Muslims?
My grandfathers are 100% Egyptians as I trace them, they were orthodox from upper Egypt .. there's no history of forcing into Islam, even forcing is against Islam!

It's very possible that they were being pressured to do so. Didn't they have to pay a special tax if they did not convert? Someone who could not afford that tax or other punishment would still be forced to convert against their will.

That tax is called Jeziah, it's a very small tax .. even smaller than the tax they had to pay before Islam reaches Egypt .. let's not forget that if someone thought to turn to Islam for that reason he will lose actually :giggling: because he will have to pay Zakah and will have to join the Islamic army..
Moreover, by the time of Caliph Omar Ibn El-Khataab, he found a man asking for money because he can't pay for Jeziah, the caliph ordered to cancel the jeziah for non Muslims who can't pay and even to give money for that man and for other non Muslims who are in need.
Economically speaking, I would rather stay Christian because I won't pay for zakah or risk my life in a war!

 

[Anwarica]

Off topic//
Can we provide this CNN page in wikipedia to prove that Islam is the fastest gowning religion in the west? because that's what I understood from the article

 

[Science101]

About the clot issue
Even the third meaning isn't wrong

I see what you are saying. Problem is that it's not really a clot, only looks that way. At this point I think we would need to read that book to see how it's described there.

That tax is called Jeziah, it's a very small tax .. even smaller than the tax they had to pay before Islam reaches Egypt .. let's not forget that if someone thought to turn to Islam for that reason he will lose actually :giggling: because he will have to pay Zakah and will have to join the Islamic army..
Moreover, by the time of Caliph Omar Ibn El-Khataab, he found a man asking for money because he can't pay for Jeziah, the caliph ordered to cancel the jeziah for non Muslims who can't pay and even to give money for that man and for other non Muslims who are in need.
Economically speaking, I would rather stay Christian because I won't pay for zakah or risk my life in a war!

In this case I think that would be evidence that it was not "forced" (in the true meaning of the word) conversion.

I think that the fastest growing religion would be disputed. I have seen the same thing claimed of Christianity and Wicca. In this case it's how the numbers are compiled that leads to confusion. For example, in Muslim countries with a high birth rate the numbers would grow, but not because people are converting. Another group would not consider that a valid indicator and only include numbers who are converting. In the states numbers are used by Christians even though the people being counted never go to church or are active, they only picked a religion when asked to choose which one they are.

The CNN article would be evidence. But I would expect other groups would find evidence for their side too.

I just found something in Wiki about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest_growing_religion

 

[Anwarica]

I see what you are saying. Problem is that it's not really a clot, only looks that way. At this point I think we would need to read that book to see how it's described there.

I don't see a problem when you have 3 meanings and even the third one isn't wrong to use as a description

For example, in Muslim countries with a high birth rate the numbers would grow, but not because people are converting.

I agree with you that Muslims have higher birth rate, but they can only count the "new converts" .. I was thinking how could the name Muhammed become the second most popluar name in the UK .. I don't see birth rate is involved here, but if they want to estimate the number of new converts, they can do that (simply, doesn't the person change his religion in ID when he converts?)

 

[Science101]

I don't see a problem when you have 3 meanings and even the third one isn't wrong to use as a description

From what I can see, it is a relatively good description based on observation. An embryo would appear to be a "leechy thing" that attaches itself then drinks blood.

The problem in claiming that nobody could know that, is that there is evidence people did. It does sound like a description based on observation. And there is no mention of chromosomes or other things that would have clearly been impossible for them to have seen like an explanation of how the DNA code works.

I'm not trying to be negative or discourage you in any way. Just want to give you my honest opinion.

I agree with you that Muslims have higher birth rate, but they can only count the "new converts" .. I was thinking how could the name Muhammed become the second most popluar name in the UK .. I don't see birth rate is involved here, but if they want to estimate the number of new converts, they can do that

I think the explanation they gave here is logical.

The name's increased popularity is thought to be partly because more young Muslims are having families.

(simply, doesn't the person change his religion in ID when he converts?)

I'm not sure how one could change their religion on an ID in the UK. Here in the US the parents can declare one on a child's birth certificate if they want. But there is no ID that I know of where religion is required, in fact, many people would object to that if it were on a drivers license or other common ID.

 

[جوري]

I don't want to interrupt a good thing here, but I enjoyed that whole 'observation' bit.. considering the time, the place and the size of our subject matter....I mean how big is a zygote? How big is an embryo even at 8 weeks?
Great.. when was the first microscope invented? what is that? around 16th 17th century you say? interesting.. when did pathology and autopsy become incorporated fully in medicine? or did women just offer their body for experimentation to be incorporated in a holy book?
Did prophet Mohammed have such a leisurely life? man o man
some embryology, some geology, some high altitude hypoxia, some anatomy, some pathology, some economics, some law, some jurisprudence all poetically written.. it is a wonder at all he never slept on a full stomach three days in a row, and slept on harsh leaves that left lash markings on his body... he should have been a king after all that....
Sob7an Allah on the lengths some people go to, to make a moot point!

carry on and forgive me for my interjection, I really couldn't help myself!

 

[Science101]

Actually, a "hanging drop" magnifier was here before humans. Are you saying you never noticed that after a rainstorm you're surrounded by magnifiers hanging off plants? Or are you saying it's impossible to see an embryo when it is large enough to be seen? For example, the size of a leechy thing? Or are you saying that prophet Mohammed could not read a book or have heard about it?

Seeing we're back to science but still on-topic, might as well add this. As you will see, even a child can make their own microscope.

http://www.mada.org.il/website/html/eng/6/6-13.htm

And to answer the next thing you might say, a thin reed or other flexible plant fiber can be substituted for the wire. A basket maker can make one real easily.

I must also add that I saw this thing on TV where they were claiming that it was impossible for some ancient people to have drawn a picture of a tiny insect that lives where it is normally wet because they had no microscope to see it with. That was so funny!

 

[جوري]

Hmmmmn even more interesting... i

Prophet Mohammed was illiterate-- but now that you've put it this way.. I am sure he used a magnifier after a rain storm ( in the deserts of Arabia) on a woman who had just recently conceived and died, in her first trimester donating her body to science in the process to be incorporated poetically in the Quran...
thank you, it is all clear now =)

 

[Science101]

You should have read the previous posts.

I just did a little investigating. Their story holds water. Here's a book that describes the human embryo, notice the date of the author:

Quote:
Claudius Galen (129-210 A.D.) writes the book "On the Formation of the Foetus" in Rome, describing the placenta and embryonic membranes.

http://alexandria-respectlife.org/embryogenesis.aspx

I could not find the text of the book, but the title is specific enough that we can assume that it includes what is found in the Quran. In this case there is credible evidence to back up their claims. To be fair, it must be included. But not all of their material passes review, some of it has no credible evidence to back it up.

 

[جوري]

Yup that is the 2nd theory, he plagiarized Galen... Gutenberg's printing press was in action and libraries and books were abounding in Arabia, and even more amazing to plagiarize and integrate when you are illiterate.. Now all that is left to do is find alike accounts for the rest of the scientific facts in the Quran. And you can publish your thesis having decrypted all its secrets!
peace

 

[Isambard]

Yup that is the 2nd theory, he plagiarized Galen... Gutenberg's printing press was in action and libraries and books were abounding in Arabia, and even more amazing to plagiarize and integrate when you are illiterate.. Now all that is left to do is find alike accounts for the rest of the scientific facts in the Quran. And you can publish your thesis having decrypted all its secrets!
peace

Alot of it has already been debunked on other sites. That and the curiously bits of missing info confirming Qur'anic divinity is missing *cough* injeel

 

[Science101]

Now all that is left to do is find alike accounts for the rest of the scientific facts in the Quran. And you can publish your thesis having decrypted all its secrets!
peace

I have no interest in proving the Quran, either way. I'm only interested in helping Anwarica. And if there is something else coming from this discussion, it's along the lines of prophet Muhammad possibly being more of a scientist than most probably realized, scientists often have good insight. From what I know about him he was a very intelligent man. More so than even you might be giving him credit for.