Atheism

[root]

That is quite interesting. So your saying you think people have not fully understood the law of gravity yet?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The theory of general relativity is as falsifiable as any other theory such as evolution and it is currently being challenged as new scientific discoveries are made.

 

[HeiGou]

Well, many scientists start believing in God when they realize how complex and detailed everything is so at first probably but when they start reasearching more deeply they change their minds.

Actually it tends to be the other way around. Atheism is strongly associated with scientific knowledge. At least in the West. Illiterates nearly always believe in some sort of Supernatural Being, usually some form of animism. Admittedly Islam, like Judaism and some forms of Protestantism, is strongly associated with literacy, but I doubt that the rule is that different in Islam.

By the way are you an Atheist? cos that post was addressed to atheists.

I am less than comfortable with being described as an atheist. But I guess I am close enough.

 

[HeiGou]

Ameen

I thank you both. That is very generous of you. As any post may be my last post, and this one may well be, I wouldn't want to go without saying I really do appreciate the intention behind that.

 

[PrIM3]

well-- I am not a scholor in science or anything like that... I think hand and hand science and religion work together.. but then again some things don't..

there are some things that I might see that will lead me to believe that the visible things in this world speaks more of the invisible things of the other world which lead me to believe that there as to be a higher being.. but that isn't going to cause you to believe in God or any other being in that matter.
I believe its more on the will of the person rather than arguements and arguements at a time... trying to force someone to believe in something is well wrong..
the atheist on this forum seem to be here to give incite on why they believe on what they believe in...

as everyone else who are not muslim..

so when it comes down to it, it is the matter of the will of the person

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

Here's just a small sample of the insults this new member has decided to fling in the general direction of atheists.

Does anyone think he's doing his cause any favours with this debating style of denial and aggression?

I have warned the member for his insults and removed the offensive material. I agree that being respectful is very important.

And for the record, I have replied to your last post (in case it was missed)

Peace.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I am less than comfortable with being described as an atheist. But I guess I am close enough.

eace:

Really well im sry for thinking of you in such a manner, please let me know what you are comfortable with .

I see, thats very interesting, about gravity thanks for both inputs. But still nothing in the Quran has ever been proven false and that way it shall surely stay.

eace:

 

[IceQueen~]

eace:



I see, thats very interesting, about gravity thanks for both inputs. But still nothing in the Quran has ever been proven false and that way it shall surely stay.

eace:

yeah- please go read some miracles of the quran first heigou and then see how science is not related to God.

 

[Ayesha Rana]

Is it just me Marge1 or does the URL come up every time you post something.

Yeah what about the stages of the baby when it is growing inside the mother?

 

[IceQueen~]

Is it just me Marge1 or does the URL come up every time you post something.

Yeah what about the stages of the baby when it is growing inside the mother?

yup, yup-how did the quran know that 1427 yrs ago?! they did not have the technology back then..

 

[Ayesha Rana]

Haha! Marge is jinxed.
Y'know i once told my teacher that and she said that they killed women and opened them up to see what the embryo looked like. Talk about Narrow minded! They didn't even have microscopes.

 

[...]

I thank you both. That is very generous of you. As any post may be my last post, and this one may well be, I wouldn't want to go without saying I really do appreciate the intention behind that.

No probseace: :thankyou:

 

[IceQueen~]

Ameen

thumma ameen!

 

[HeiGou]

Yeah what about the stages of the baby when it is growing inside the mother?

I am deeply unconvinced about the embryology of the Quran. But look at what the Greeks knew. Spotaneous abortions are not uncommon. Presumably most people had a fair idea of what the stages of a baby inside the Mother looked like.

 

[...]

I am deeply unconvinced about the embryology of the Quran. But look at what the Greeks knew. Spotaneous abortions are not uncommon. Presumably most people had a fair idea of what the stages of a baby inside the Mother looked like.

What did the greeks know?:?

 

[Ayesha Rana]

I am deeply unconvinced about the embryology of the Quran. But look at what the Greeks knew. Spotaneous abortions are not uncommon. Presumably most people had a fair idea of what the stages of a baby inside the Mother looked like.

Yeah but this isn't the kind of idea you can just guess. How are they supposed to know exacltly and in precise detail what the embryo looks like and what develops first?

And when was it that the Greeks found out what they knew?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

yup, yup-how did the quran know that 1427 yrs ago?! they did not have the technology back then..

I've asked this question many times before, but no-one has yet answered it:

Two ancient Greeks, Democritus and Aristarchus had scientific theories that were either ignored or rejected for centuries before science actually discovered them to be accurate. Democritus proposed an atomic theory of matter, and Aristarchus believed that the Earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way round. These statements are recorded in texts from centuries before the time of the Jesus, let alone the invention of telescopes and microscopes.

Does the fact that these two men were right make their pronouncements miraculous?

Peace

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Muhammad,

Sorry, I must have missed this post - thank you for the reminder.

Firstly, not everyone undertakes the search for God with the same level of scrutiny and sincerity as others. Not everyone bothers to find out about these things in the first place, so in this way, many people do not believe in God upon grounds that don't have anything to do with proof.

I agree. I'm not saying "I don't believe in god because there is no proof that he exists", I'm just questioning the assertion that god's existence has been proven.

As for the evidence for the existence of God, then at first it might seem like there could be various possibilities, just like there could be for finding the third side of a triangle had Pythagoras' Theorem not been discovered. Upon examining the evidience though, other possibilities are ruled out and a final conclusion can be drawn.

I'm not so sure. It takes an awful lot of confidence to say that you know where the universe came from. I don't have that confidence, and neither do most scientists and philosophers. Where there is a lack of evidence, we should say that we simply don't know, rather than ruling out all other possibilities that don't fit with our hypothesis.

There is also another factor that comes to mind, explaining why not everyone shares the same belief in God, and that is denial. For some who realise that there is a God, and understand the evidence that points to Him, desire and personal aims hold them back. Perhaps it is upholding a family tradition or fear of surrounding reaction; many things such as this act to create denial in people's hearts. Ultimately, guidance is from God Himself and we can only pray for the misguided.

I suppose that's possible, if someone was raised in a strongly atheist family or something. I've not heard of such a case outside of Communist dicatatorships, though.

In my own case, it would have been easier for me if I had believed in god - all those hours spent in church at my (Catholic) school wouldn't have seemed like such a monumental waste of time.

However, we have not begun to consider what the proofs of the existence of God are, so we cannot really compare them to Pythagoras' Theorem.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm comparing them to the proof of Pythagoras' Theorem.

Also, I think most of the standard arguments for god's existence have been covered on this and various other threads, haven't they?

I'm not going to locate them all now, but I'm sure we've had discussions on the cosmological (first cause) argument, the teleological (design) argument, the Qur'anic miracles arguments and the argument from morality. The ontological argument hasn't made an appearance, as far as I recall. Are these the "proofs" you're thinking of? If you'd like to mention some that aren't covered in this list I'd be happy to discuss them.

Furthermore, this likening of the proofs of God's existence to science/mathematics relates back to my point that such a comparison isn't always necessary.

I'm not saying it's necessary, but is it somehow unacceptable?

For example, Pythagoras' Theorem is like a rule by which this universe is governed, like gravity. If we look at how these rules came about and ponder over their regulation, we are viewing the matter in a different way while still using logic and open to being compelled to accept a true answer.

I'm afraid I'm not really sure what you're getting at here - would you mind elaborating?

Peace

 

[Muhammad Waqqas]

... Considering your youthful age and lack of any basic ...

You should rather have written "Assuming" instead of "Considering".

Anyway, here are the extremely logical replies brother HeiGou has written in reply to my post. And yes, I indeed should not have been that much offensive. I'm sorry.

So here we are:

1) You can say that all you like but it will not become any more true through repetition. Darwin did believe in his theory and went to his grave defending it. (Extremely logical, backed up by facts and quoted from books)

2) Well nothing more is needed. You say we do not find intermediaries and we do. Simple. (Extremely logical, backed up by facts and quoted from books)

Next,

This is not true as Westerners have been able to build much better lenses for some time.

Which reflects extreme deficiency of knowledge in the writer's part. You are actually living in 1850's and don't want to come to modern age, for you'll have to accept God. Closing your eye's to reality cannot cure you from any disease.

With some other form of eye perhaps? Come on, this is childish.

Just because you cannot understand something doesn’t mean that thing is childish. I was referring to the comparison of natural eye with human-made technology, the TV, the monitors, the LCDs etc.

All this nonsense has nothing to do with evolution of course. And if you thought about it for a minute you would realize that computer monitors are above all else, cheap and so their quality tends to be poor - but they are getting better.

Again, if you cannot understand something, doesn’t mean the thing is wrong.
It has alot to do with evolution. By writing that, I was replying to "YOUR" argument, which you made in the state of mind of a person from 19th Century. That is:

Well yes it is possible as Darwin agreed. And as study of the eye shows, it proves evolution because it is not a wonderful structure but a messy, poorly designed organ that clearly evolved.

And that reflects complete illogicalness and lack of knowledge of the writer. And so I had replied that it’s not that much of a simple structure (the eye) its way more complicated.

Yet Americans can build satellites that can read number plates from outer space. And in 3-D too. So self evidently, scientists can build better lenses than the human eye. Is this the best you can do?

This is not true as Westerners have been able to build much better lenses for some time.

It’s like we dreaming right now. How many people write posts while they are asleep? Have you ever seen an image, taken or recorded from such a camera, which is so vivid and clear and sharp that you cannot differentiate whether it’s an image on a screen or is it a real thing? The brief answer is: “NO”, and by all means its impossible to do it. If yet this sharpness is not achieved, after which hundreds and thousands of people are working on, then how can you imagine that the eye came into existence just coincidently? Its illogical.

First of all, I did not talk about the range of eye to be compared with satellite. I wrote about the sharpness of image. No matter how advanced Television you have, you can clearly differentiate between the image on the TV and a real object. So therefore, with all the technology science has got, yet you cannot have anything like the natural eye.

Next, seeing through a long distance too doesn’t prove any superiority of anything. A simple computer can solve a thousand calculations in an instant, that doesn’t mean its more intelligent than a human? A human might be able to solve only one at a time, but the difference is the power of decision. This is what the computer cannot take. Therefore seeing far-away and calculating faster doesn’t prove anything.

You know, if you go back in time, you'll see that the creation of satellite is not a coincidence. Ever since man has set foot on the earth, he is doing a research. Therefore, everything we have today, is actually a research work of, perhaps, 1 Million years? If the eye you are referring to (The satellite etc) is created in this much span of time, with countless number of people involved in it, how can you assume the real eye be created just coincidently?!?

Same old argument - "I am too stupid to think of how this might have occurred therefore it is the work of God". And it is just as wrong now as it ever has been. Eyes do not evolve purely through chance. Eyes evolve through evolution which is, locally, directed. Not random.

This is technically the end of the discussion. What are we discussing? It’s exactly what you wrote but in an ironic way.

Science accepts logics and reasons. Today, after advancement of science we know the deep structure of Human, we know its miraculous, and its unimaginable and illogical to think its evolved. And that’s exactly what you stated above. Since it’s unimaginable, and illogical, therefore we reject it. How easier do you want it to be?

How did the cell feel the need of seeing? How? And how come everything, ever since they have started to evolve contains eyes? It should have been so for some species. Such wonderful tool should have evolved way later in the span of time. Earlier shapes of the living thing shouldn’t have had such things.

So ask the tough question about the eye - the light coems in through the lens ... Why else would the eye be back to front?

You're living in 19th century, like I said, closing your eyes to reality will do nothing at all.

I already wrote above, that the image formed by the eye is way much sharper than any other image formed by any LCD or anything. This is a sufficient proof that the eye is much more superior to anything else available today.

Another super logical post:

who asked you to clear the problems in the theory for us? ...

You did. You are wrong if you say Darwin did not agree.

and..

Please do not feel you need to.

...imagine. He is trying to be more reasonable and logical here.

How about Sálim Ali, born Sálim Moizuddin Abdul Ali, (November 12, 1896 - July 27, 1987), Stanley Cohen (born November 17, 1922) as for christians, take your pick.

How many people know about Salim Ali? How many? He forgot to mention that he was an Indian. Who knows about Stanley Cohen? Who? Anybody here? Raise your hands. Are these people worth mentioning? Its like I say, oh my neighbor, he disagrees with gravity, therefore we have scientists who disagree with gravity and that’s why, gravity is a conflicting theory.

Stephen Jay Gould. Richard Dawkins. You name one. Which biologists do not is the more relevant question.

If you would have “JUST READ” my post, you could have pointed out at least 3 – 5 biologists who disagreed with Darwin.

1)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Patrick Glynn
2)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Bryce Christensen
3)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]George Politzer
4)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Henry Margenau
5)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]John Maddox
6)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]H. P. Lipson
7)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Paul Davies
8)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]W. Press
9)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]And last, but not least: “Charles Darwin.”

You just keep counting them and the list won’t end.

Why don't you look up what that article says and get back to me?

Well that is not quite a fair claim about what he said. Again why don't you read it and get back to us?

Sure. What is called Punk-Ek. But still Darwinian. You cannot take a quote out of context and claim it is a refutation of Darwinism when it is the opposite.

Oh My! There we have it again. Another self assumption, backed up with NO FACT at all. Every brief quote needs not to be a quote out of context. You are assuming your self that it’s out of context and with context it will mean something else. Why don’t you just prove it wrong? And while you can’t, you’re on the wrong side. I’ve given a quotation with page number, all you have to do is go and get the book and read the context, and then tell everybody what the real context is. Since you’re not doing it, you’re not right. Your argument means nothing to anybody. When you will have it done, when you will have it proved, only then your this argument may hold some weight.

Secondly, I need not to prove anything to you. I am not here to make you a God-Believing or a Muslim. Seriously, I don’t give a damn about it. My job is only to show you the truth, you agree with it, well and good, you don’t, I don’t care at all. I’m never going to worship my self (by following my emotions) and neither are you going to worship that which I worship, nor will I worship that which you worshiping, nor will you worship that which I worship. For you is your way, for me is mine.

No one had defend Spontaneous Generation for about 200 years when Darwin came along. It had been proven wrong with the first microscopes. It has nothing to do with Darwin at all - who did not, by the way, comment much on the origins of life.

Why do atheists have no problem in lying? The first microscope was invented by Hans and Zacharias Jansen, a father and son who operated a Dutch lens grinding business, around 1595. Their first microscopes were more of a novelty than a scientific tool since maximum magnification was only around 9X and the images were somewhat blurry. You expect them to prove SG wrong with this:

?!? Are you awake?!?

It was Antony Van Leeuwenhoek, a Dutch draper and scientist, and one of the pioneers of microscopy who in the late 17th century became the first man to make and use a real microscope. He made his own simple microscopes, which had a single lens and were hand-held. Van Leeuwenhoek outdid his contemporaries by developing ways to make superior lenses, grinding and polishing a small glass ball into a lens with a magnification of 270X.

All the early microscopes saw quite distorted images due to the low quality of the glass and imperfect shape of their lenses. The 19th century saw dramatic progress in the development of the microscope, thanks to the contributions of Carl Zeiss, who devoted significant effort to the manufacture of microscopes, Ernst Abbe, who carried out a theoretical study of optical principles, and Otto Schott, who conducted research on optical glass.

(Source: http://www.visioneng.com/technology/microscope_history.htm#later_developments)

Let me quote… Blah blah blah

Imagine, no reference at all, who are you quoting? Again your neighbor?

Point # 1: There was no such microscope with which they might have proven SG wrong.

Point # 2: I gave a reference Louis’s book, which he wrote 5 years after Darwin’s book, which is quite convincing, since why would Louis do a research on something that has already been proved? It’s illogical. Come up with facts.

Just look at his microscope is used to see micro-organisms:

Got anything?

Did his post had anything?!? How many refrences? Not a single! How many logical arguments? Not a single. Yet, he dares to write the ending line “Got anything”, imagine…

 

[Muhammad Waqqas]

Do you doubt that if the slow deer are eaten the faster deer will survive and so over time the deer herd will become faster?

Now look at this... WHY DON’T YOU PEOPLE BE A BIT MORE PRACTICLE? We have marathon runners, don’t we? Are their children by birth fast in running? NO! Therefore natural selection is nothing to do with evolution.

And that "unquestionable" shows the stupidity of the author and of course no one says deer will become horses. They may, however, become something else.

Yea right, because horses were actually evolved from crabs, right? How stupid can an atheist be? Of course horses, according to Charles Darwin, are a modified form of dears and goats.

Which is perfectly true and utterly irrelevant to your claims above. It is clear that variation in deer does occur - some are faster than others, no two looks exactly alike.

I sometimes ask my self, why do I talk with atheists… but then I realize that its my job at least to tell them once that there is a life after death waiting for you, and so I continue doing it.

Did you actually read what I wrote? “Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur.”

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES OR VARIATIONS OCCUR. Meaning on individual bases, there might be some changes, but on the whole race of the specie there won’t be an effect. Therefore the animal will not evolve any more. What the …. Confuses you?

This is utterly ignorant. Darwin rejected Lamarckian theories. There is no point attempting to claim that Darwin was a Lamarkian when he was not. It is in fact amazing that Darwin, without understanding genetics, nonetheless did a verty good job of working out how it all worked. DNA simply proves Darwin right. AS you would know if you had done as much as High School biology.

DNA doesn’t. Who are you fooling? Now, I know you were thinking of writing down a few more lies about DNA as well, but you stoped for you thought there might be some who may take it out and you may be ashamed. I read a post by root a few pages back, completely ridiculous. You tell us about DNA, how dose it prove. And then wait for the reply.

 

[Muhammad Waqqas]

I am deeply unconvinced about the embryology of the Quran. But look at what the Greeks knew. Spotaneous abortions are not uncommon. Presumably most people had a fair idea of what the stages of a baby inside the Mother looked like.

There were a group of Arabs who collected the data dealing in the Qur’an about ‘Embryology’ and the Hadith dealing with Embryology. And they presented it to Professor Keith Moore, who was the chairman and the head of the department of ‘Anatomy’, in the university of Toronto, in Canada - And at present he is one of the leading scientist in the field of ‘Embryology.’ After reading the various translations of the Qur’an, he was asked to comment, and he said… ‘Most of the Verses of the Qur’an and the Hadith, are in perfect conformity with Modern Embryology. But there are a few Verses which I cannot say that they are right neither can I say that they are wrong, because I myself don’t know about it. And two such Verses were the first two Verses of the Qur’an to be revealed, from Surah Iqra or Surah Alaq , Ch. 96 Verses No. 1 and 2 which says…‘Read, recite or proclaim in the name of thy Lord, Who created, Who created the human beings from something which clings - a leech like substance.'

So professor Keith Moore said, ‘I did not know whether the early stage of the embryo looks like a leech’ And he went into his laboratory, and he analyzed the early stage of an embryo, under a microscope and compared it with the photograph of a leech, and he was astonished at the striking resemblance.

Professor Keith Moore, after about 80 questions were asked to him, he said… ‘If you would have asked me these 80 questions, 30 years ago, I would not be able to answer more than 50 percent - Because embryology has developed recently in the past 30 years.’ He said this in the eighties. Now, do we believe Dr. Keith Moore whose statement is available outside in the foyer - his videocassette is available… ‘This is the truth’...’Anna-ul-Haq’... recorded statement.

Will you believe HeiGou's personal opinion, or the one mentioned in this book, with Islamic edition as well as the photograph? And in the videocassette available outside you can see it - He makes those statements. So you have to choose which is more logical - Personal opinion of GeiGou, or Keith Moore's statement on Video.

It was incorporated later into this book…‘The Developing Human’ - the 3rd edition and this book got an award for the best medical book written by a single author in that year. It's Islamic edition that was put forward by Shaikh Abdul Majeed Al-Jindani and certified by Keith Moore himself. The Qur’an says in Surah Muminun, Ch. 23 Verse No. 13, and Surah Haj Ch. 22, Verse No. 5, and no less than 11 different places in the Qur’an, that the human beings have been made from a ‘nutfaa’ ‘minute quantity of liquid’…like a trickle that is remaining in the cup. ‘Nutfa’ in Arabic… a very small quantity. Today we have come to know, that in one seminal emission, in which there are several millions of sperms, only one is required to fertilize the ovum - ‘The Qur’an refers as ‘nutfa.’ Qur’an says in Surah Sajda Ch. 32 Verse no. 8…‘We have created the human beings from ‘Sulalah’ - That means the best part of a whole. The one sperm which fertilizes the ova out of the millions of sperms, the Qur’an refers to as ‘Sulalah’…‘best part of the whole.’ And Qur’an says in Surah Insan, Ch. 76 Verse No. 2…‘We have created the human beings from ‘nutfatunamshaj’…a minute quantity of mingled fluid’ - referring to the sperm as well as the ovum - Both are required for the fertilization. It is mentioned in Surah Muminun Ch. 23, Verses No. 12 to 14 - The translation is that…‘We have created the human beings from a ‘nutfa.’ – ‘A minute quantity of liquid.’ Then placed it in ‘cararemakeen’ - a place of security. Then We made it into an ‘Alaqa’ - a leech like substance - something which clings - a congealed clot of blood. Then We made that ‘Alaqa’ into a ‘Mutga’ a ‘chewed like lump.’ Then We made the ‘Mutga’ into ‘Izama’…bones. Then clothed the bones with ‘leham’… flesh. Then We made it a new creature. Blessed be Allah Who is the best to create. These 3 Verses of the Qur’an, speak about the various embryological stages in great detail. First the nutfa placed in a place of security - Made into an ‘Alaqa’, Alaqa has got 3 meanings - One is ‘something’ which clings’, and we know that in the initial stages, the embryo clings to the uterine wall and continues clinging till the end. Point No.2, that it also means a leech like substance, and as I discussed earlier, the embryo in the initial stages, does look like a leech. Besides looking like a leech - it also behaves like a leech - It receives its blood supply from the mother’ like a bloodsucker. And the 3rd meaning ‘the congealed clot of blood’ Today…after advancement of embryology, even Dr. Keith Moore - He says that… ‘In the initial stages, the embryo, besides looking like a leech, also looks like a congealed clot of blood, because in the initial stages, of the stage of ‘Alaqa’, 3 to 4 weeks, the blood is clotted within closed vessels. This is exactly what Professor Keith Moore said… ‘Looks like a clot, in which the blood is clotted within closed vessels And during the 3rd week of the embryo, the blood circulation does not take place - it starts later on - Therefore it assumes the appearance of a clot. And if you observe the conspectus - that is after abortion takes place, you can see, it look like a clot. Only one line answer is sufficient to answer all the allegations of Christian missionaries is that, the stages of the Qur’an while it describes the embryological stages, is only based on appearance… Appearance. First is the appearance of the ‘Alaqa’ , a ‘leech like substance’ as well as a clot of blood.’ Some ladies come and ask… ‘Please remove the clot’ - It does look like a clot And the stages are based on appearance. It is created from something, which appears like a clot, which appears like a leech, and is also something which clings. Then the Qur’an says… ‘We made the ‘Alaqa’ into ‘Mutga’ – a chewed like lump.’ Professor Keith Moore took plastic seal, and bit between his teeth to make it look like a ‘Mutga’- The teeth marks resembled the ‘somites.’

"Look at what the greeks new:"

The point to be noted - Just because someone says something, which are matching with the Qur’an, that does not mean that Qur’an has been copied from that. Suppose I make a statement… suppose, if I make a statement, which is correct, which was said by somebody else earlier - That does not mean I have copied. It may be, It may not be. To use the conflict approach with the Qur’an… ‘Yes! He copied’ - Okay fine - But lets analyze. The Qur’an does not take the things which were wrong from Hypocrites.If he would have copied, he would have copied everything - it is logical. Unless he is a scientist… ‘Okay this is correct… Oh! This is wrong I won’t copy that - This is correct, I will copy that.’All the stages of Hypocrites, and Gallon is not the same as the Qur’an - Hypocrites and Gallon does not speak about ‘leech like substance.’ They do not speak about ‘mudgah’ at all - Where do they speak? Hypocrites and Gallon, at that time, they said that… ‘Even the women have got semen’ - who says that? - Even the Bible says that. If you read in the Bible, it is mentioned in Leviticus Chapter No.12, Verse No.1 to 12, that woman gives out seed - So actually Bible is copying from Hypocrites.And Bible says in Job… Bible says in Job, Chapter No.10, Verse No.9 and 10, that… ‘We have made the human beings from clay, like poured out milk and curdled cheese.’Poured out milk and curdled cheese, is exact plaguerisation from Hypocrites.Why plaguerisation? - Because surely that is not the word of God - That portion is unscientific.It was said by Hypocrites and Gallon, the Greeks, that… ‘Human beings are created like curdled cheese’ - And Bible copies that exactly.But Qur’an Alhamdulillah, and if you analyze and read the books on ‘Embryology, even of Dr. Keith Moore, he said that… ‘Hypocrites and the other people like Gallon, etc, they did give a lot of thing to embryology, initially, as well as Aristotle’ - Many were right, many were wrong.’And further he goes to says… ‘In the middle ages, or at the time of the Arabs, the Qur’an speaks about something additional.’ If it was exactly copied, why would Dr. Keith Moore in his book, give due credit to the Qur’an.He even gives due credit to Aristotle, to Hypocrites - but mentioned there… ‘Many were wrong.’ That, he does not mention with the Qur’an. That is enough proof, that Qur’an was not copied from the Greek time.