Help in debunking a muslim argument.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-12-2011, 12:32 PM
RE: Help in debunking a muslim argument.
The passage quoted suggests that the fetus develops as a little skeleton first, which then gets covered with muscle, and finally with skin. This is, in fact, wrong. Skin develops first, together with brain, spinal chord, heart, and GI tract. Only after do bones and vertebrae develop, and finally muscle and hair.

So if anything that passage can be used as proof that it is NOT the word of god.

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like sy2502's post
13-12-2011, 05:42 PM
RE: Help in debunking a muslim argument.
Well, I'm not a biologist, but to me it seems that, if you wake up one day and find out that you suddenly became a god, that is a recipe on how to create your first human. It really doesn't read as an embryology thesis.

Let's assume for a second that the description really is 100% accurate.

The Old Testament is much older than the Qu'ran, isn't it?. I'm going to quote from it and I would give a warning for gory content, but it already passed as appropriate lecture for children so deal with it:

Hosea 13:16 (King James) "Samaria will bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God.
They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open."

Remember, that was many centuries before the Qu'ran was written. I may be wrong, but if I were a holy warrior, I wouldn't have to rip many pregnant women open before I can give a good description of the fetus so the claim that such information was unavailable in the 7th century is wrong.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Malleus's post
13-12-2011, 07:24 PM
RE: Help in debunking a muslim argument.
(13-12-2011 05:42 PM)Malleus Wrote:  Well, I'm not a biologist, but to me it seems that, if you wake up one day and find out that you suddenly became a god, that is a recipe on how to create your first human. It really doesn't read as an embryology thesis.

Let's assume for a second that the description really is 100% accurate.

The Old Testament is much older than the Qu'ran, isn't it?. I'm going to quote from it and I would give a warning for gory content, but it already passed as appropriate lecture for children so deal with it:

Hosea 13:16 (King James) "Samaria will bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God.
They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open."

Remember, that was many centuries before the Qu'ran was written. I may be wrong, but if I were a holy warrior, I wouldn't have to rip many pregnant women open before I can give a good description of the fetus so the claim that such information was unavailable in the 7th century is wrong.

Rebelling foetuses? Things get worse and worse.
As for the clay and seed stuff; they initially use the word "they" re the manufacturers.
Interesting that a monotheistic religion should use the plural.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2011, 12:10 AM
RE: Help in debunking a muslim argument.
(13-12-2011 10:31 AM)Jackrabbit Wrote:  Any thoughts on this?

I wasn't going to reply (I can see this one example has been thoroughly answered), but in response to any future arguments along these lines...

It isn't enough to say "my holy book is scientifically accurate". If you discovered that you could kill a person by pouring poison in their ear, would it prove that Hamlet was a true story after all or that Shakespeare was inspired by God? Of course not. It could be a coincidence, or even knowledge available at the time of writing. Or it could even be a mistranslation (by ear, Shakespeare meant "mouth").

See, in order for this to even be considered "evidence" for the divinity behind the writing of the Q'uran, you'd have to not only prove that the Q'uran predicted unknown science, but you'd also have to prove a link between that prediction and Allah. Just because it's in a holy book doesn't mean it has a divine origin.

But I'm quite certain that the Q'uran didn't further science because science didn't figure it out until centuries after it had been supposedly written down in the Q'uran, and it wasn't discovered by reading the Q'uran. Have you heard that quote from The Social Network, "If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook." I'm going to steal that quote to make my point:

If Muslims had made these scientific discoveries, they would've been discovered by Muslims.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Starcrash's post
14-12-2011, 12:57 AM (This post was last modified: 14-12-2011 01:10 AM by Jackrabbit.)
RE: Help in debunking a muslim argument.
(13-12-2011 07:24 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Rebelling foetuses? Things get worse and worse.
As for the clay and seed stuff; they initially use the word "they" re the manufacturers.
Interesting that a monotheistic religion should use the plural.

In Arabic a plural is a gramatic form of respect and doesnt necesarrily mean plural, in the Quraan, allah states many times that "We created, We did, We punished, etc." for a singular person/being to say "we" in arabic is like the English Equivilant of a person talking about himself in the third person, kinda like a show of arrogance.

This is a hypothetical example of what it would probably look like in English

And Lo Jesus said onto his followers "Jesus hath walked on water"
Or "We hath walked on water"

(14-12-2011 12:10 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(13-12-2011 10:31 AM)Jackrabbit Wrote:  Any thoughts on this?

I wasn't going to reply (I can see this one example has been thoroughly answered), but in response to any future arguments along these lines...

It isn't enough to say "my holy book is scientifically accurate". If you discovered that you could kill a person by pouring poison in their ear, would it prove that Hamlet was a true story after all or that Shakespeare was inspired by God? Of course not. It could be a coincidence, or even knowledge available at the time of writing. Or it could even be a mistranslation (by ear, Shakespeare meant "mouth").

See, in order for this to even be considered "evidence" for the divinity behind the writing of the Q'uran, you'd have to not only prove that the Q'uran predicted unknown science, but you'd also have to prove a link between that prediction and Allah. Just because it's in a holy book doesn't mean it has a divine origin.

But I'm quite certain that the Q'uran didn't further science because science didn't figure it out until centuries after it had been supposedly written down in the Q'uran, and it wasn't discovered by reading the Q'uran. Have you heard that quote from The Social Network, "If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook." I'm going to steal that quote to make my point:

If Muslims had made these scientific discoveries, they would've been discovered by Muslims.

I agree, a link has already been proven between Muhammed and Hellenic science, which he plagerised in these particular verses. The exact same (false i might add too) stages of embryology put forth by aristotle and widely accepted.

daemonowner has posted a link few posts up to a youtube video that describes this in full detail.


(13-12-2011 05:42 PM)Malleus Wrote:  Hosea 13:16 (King James) "Samaria will bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God.
They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open."

Holy Crap that is positivley Gruesome XD

"Yeah, good idea. Make them buy your invisible apple. Insist that they do. Market it properly and don't stop until they pay for it." -Malleus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2011, 12:36 PM
RE: Help in debunking a muslim argument.
The Hosea quote further supports what I argued in a conversation with Klingschor (guy who made the video linked) vias YT comments. Muhammed didn't even need to get his embryology from the greeks, although it would have been trivially easy to.
Here's what Klingschor said:
"1. He only needed to have sex to know about Nutfa.

2. He only needed to see an aborted foetus to surmise "blood-clot", or kill or see killed a pregnant animal to see a "clinging thing".

3. He only needed (misguided) common sense to surmise that bones are clothed in flesh."

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: