Everything Created in pairs?

[جوري]

I don't think it satisfies "of everything we created pairs" at all.
Saying that the behaviour or properties of a thing are such that it doesn't need to be part of a pair isn't the same as it being part of a pair. You're just strengthening the opposition's argument.

I don't see how I am strengthening the opposite argument? care to eleaborate on that? & you are certainly entitled to your opinion YOUR ( personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty) is worth as much as the next blogger, which is to say exhibiting your native judgment rather than palpable sensical constructs!

I hope you'll forgive me but that is the funniest thing you've ever said. Practically every thread in which you comment and I've also posted, you start making proclamations about who is or isn't qualified to comment on this or that topic, while yourself speaking as an authority on anything that takes your fancy.

From one of your earlier posts:
You are as qualified as the next blogger to make a guesstimate at the age of such or the age of such.. your opinion is also as pedestrian as the next blogger.. Until I see your thesis in a scientific journal that is peer reviewed.. I'd refrain from speaking with such authority on any topic.. it just makes you look so foolish.. Anyone can google and come up with evidence for or against .. as I have just done in the Quote above...

I thought since you like dismissing everyone as 'bloggers' and 'google scholars', it might be pertinent to point out that you don't actually know anything about the people you're talking to and what may qualify then to comment on the topic.
Except in every third post.

I am not seeing anything funny at all.. Do you find conforming to reality funny? I actually stand by my above statement.. in fact here I am a Muslim/ Arabic speaking, and chosen not to give a non-scholarly reply to what I consider an important question, while you deem it fit to offer an exegesis to Quranic text.. I ask by what virtue?

You should ponder on this yourself and on your need to start throwing insults and diverting the thread every time you are without a sufficient retort.
that's really insightful and interesting, thanks :rollseyes

Is this a mere drive by shooting with your BB gun ( I am wounded) I was invited by someone to offer a reply to this thread.. in fact even if I weren't personally invited, a Muslim here asked for another 'Muslim' to help I reference to a couple of pages ago.. Which I tried in part but declined to give a full exegesis to, until I find an article by a scholar on the topic or offered to ask the scholar (link included as an option).. further again declined to translate it, and asked if another Arabic speaking Muslim would give it sometime, as I know my time limit with which I can dedicate to each thread.. Thus I ask how have I diverted or hijacked the thread or even made mention of what qualifies me or another on the matter?

As he said, this is a public forum, I responded to the assertions of the third poster which is hardly diverting the topic since it is one example of evidence against the question in the thread title.
The point is that while noone can say the universe came into being on the 3rd August 14,564,304,992 BC, it's fair to say that the previously stated age is out by 3 orders of magnitude, which is more than a slight accounting hiccup in anyone's book.

Actually you responded to a negligible side point to a thread I had posted, to make a case for yourself which if anything at all isn't even in keeping with the subject of the thread itself.. I find that you confabulate when you can't come up with anything tangible to write.
Now, do you think you can sit and focus on a topic without tangentially?

 

[Azy]

I don't see how I am strengthening the opposite argument? care to eleaborate on that?

You're excusing the need for it to be part of what we would call a pair.

If male and female are a pair, and hermaphrodite worms are accepted as a pair and bacteria are accepted as pairs then you could pretty much argue for anything as part of a pair by twisting the definition.

Out of curiosity, how would you explain parthenogenesis in insects with multiple eggs, or the segmentation of some worms into multiple pieces as a means of reproduction in keeping them with 'pairs'?

Actually you responded to a negligible side point to a thread I had posted, to make a case for yourself which if anything at all isn't even in keeping with the subject of the thread itself..

The first part was for the benefit of AntiKarateKid, the second part was directed at your link, but mainly to raise issue with the reliability of the source given the error stated. I'll try be more straight-forward next time.

 

[Chuck]

worms are accepted as a pair and bacteria are accepted as pairs then you could pretty much argue for anything as part of a pair by twisting the definition.

But they are pairing, what else you would call them? non-pair pairs?

 

[Azy]

But they are pairing, what else you would call them? non-pair pairs?

The point is you have to change the rule as to what counts as part of the pair to make it fit.
In bacteria it's the parent and offspring.
In humans it's the two parents and not the offspring (otherwise it'd be 3)
In parthenogenic species a single parent creates many offspring (not sure how you'd make that fit into a pair)

 

[جوري]

You're excusing the need for it to be part of what we would call a pair.

If male and female are a pair, and hermaphrodite worms are accepted as a pair and bacteria are accepted as pairs then you could pretty much argue for anything as part of a pair by twisting the definition.

Actually I don't, as per Quranic verse itself.. which is what we have originally used as a definition

سُبْحَانَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ الْأَزْوَاجَ كُلَّهَا مِمَّا تُنبِتُ الْأَرْضُ وَمِنْ أَنفُسِهِمْ وَمِمَّا لَا يَعْلَمُونَ {36}​

[Pickthal 36:36] Glory be to Him Who created all the sexual pairs, of that which the earth groweth, and of themselves, and of that which they know not!

Out of curiosity, how would you explain parthenogenesis in insects with multiple eggs, or the segmentation of some worms into multiple pieces as a means of reproduction in keeping them with 'pairs'?

I believe I was the one who first alluded to parthenogensis in the previous page as well, written an entire separate paragraph denoting, what I think the term 'pair' means in this sequence, all you need to do is go back one page!

The first part was for the benefit of AntiKarateKid, the second part was directed at your link, but mainly to raise issue with the reliability of the source given the error stated. I'll try be more straight-forward next time.

Fair enough!

cheers

 

[Woodrow]

Possibly we are not even looking correctly at the concept of pair?

 

[Chuck]

The point is you have to change the rule as to what counts as part of the pair to make it fit.
In bacteria it's the parent and offspring.
In humans it's the two parents and not the offspring (otherwise it'd be 3)
In parthenogenic species a single parent creates many offspring (not sure how you'd make that fit into a pair)

And it doesn't when worms take male & female roles because it is beneficial. I can't see why that wouldn't constitute a pair?

It is not about gender per se as their are hadiths speaking about intersex gender(s): in Hadith (sayings of Prophet Muhammad, SAW), effeminate men are forbidden to enter upon women as they may have interest in women, notwithstanding without natural sexual prowess. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) forbade the entry of an effeminate man in his household, since He (SAW) had heard him relishing the description of physical features of a woman. The narration exhibited amply the effeminate man’s interest in the women (Sahi Bukhari, 1986, p. 119; Mauta ImamMalik, 1979, p.557; Sunnan-e-Ibne Maja, 1983, p. 533).

There are clear rulings in Islam about intersex gender(s) which differ from male and female genders. Their issues has been discussed by early Islamic scholars.

 

[SixTen]

We are looking beyond as to what was being written. The Qur'an is not trying to predict/or state for you a scientific principle/miracle, it is just mentioning a natural occurance for you to ponder over - i.e. how humans/animals seem to be in pairs (male/female).

It was known in ancient times that there were pairs in the human and animal worlds. Later on man learnt of pairs in trees and plants.

In comparison, take the verses of Surah Ar-Rahman:

There in are fruits and palm trees with sheaths.


And grain with husk and fray. rant flowers.


Which then, of the favours of your Lord wills O Jinn and men you twain will deny?

It states natural phenomena's, as favours that you should ponder over. Is it not taught, that he could have made the rain bitter if he willed?

Take the Qur'an in context, you don't have to see everything in a scientific sense. Their are many metaphoric, or simple literal meanings (as in this case) - which people are looking too much in.

An example would me saying the chair is red - but you argued it somewhat resembles maroon - you are missing the point .

 

[Nerd]

Guess for the time being, we have to leave it at Allah Knows the best.