A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS: IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS



 Religions > Atheism > A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS: IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "MOTHER NATURE"
Date: 22 Sep 2005 11:25:26 AM
Object: A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS: IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS
Dear Atheistic friends
In the linke beneath there is video footage from scientists who
conducted years of research some of which is replicable in the
laboratory to find out whether God in indeed a reality and has
communicated with man. Please check the link and let me hear your
views:
http://www.islampedia.com/ijaz/Html/Scientist_All/
Chers
MOTHER NATURE
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"

Title: Re: A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS: IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS 22 Sep 2005 11:45:17 AM
In <1127406326.529850.106190@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "MOTHER
NATURE" <avatar1.shyke@gmail.com> wrote:

In the linke beneath there is video footage from scientists who conducted
years of research some of which is replicable in the laboratory to find
out whether God in indeed a reality and has communicated with man. Please
check the link and let me hear your views:

'Tis a silly place!
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We're angry, Mr. President, and we'll be angry long
after our beloved city and surrounding parishes have
been pumped dry. Our people deserved rescuing.
Many who could have been were not. That's to the
government's shame."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2D511CBB
.

User: "Dick C"

Title: Re: A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS: IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS 25 Sep 2005 10:06:13 AM
MOTHER NATURE wrote in alt.atheism

Dear Atheistic friends

In the linke beneath there is video footage from scientists who
conducted years of research some of which is replicable in the
laboratory to find out whether God in indeed a reality and has
communicated with man. Please check the link and let me hear your
views:

http://www.islampedia.com/ijaz/Html/Scientist_All/

I tried it, and all I got was a "Document contains no data".
--
***** #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email:

.

User: "Fred Acquistapace"

Title: Re: A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS: IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS 22 Sep 2005 12:47:51 PM
MOTHER NATURE wrote:

Dear Atheistic friends

In the linke beneath there is video footage from scientists who
conducted years of research some of which is replicable in the
laboratory to find out whether God in indeed a reality and has
communicated with man. Please check the link and let me hear your
views:

http://www.islampedia.com/ijaz/Html/Scientist_All/

Chers
MOTHER NATURE

I read all the links and found them to be vague. I think the scientists
were being kind to the Sheikh so as not to insult him, but sort of
hedged their comments. To say "there are many accuracies," allows for
many inaccuracies. To say "There exist statements in the Quran shown
centuries later to be valid," this could very well be by translations
favorable to the subject. To say "statements made there in many ways
are true," indicates that in many ways they are not true.
One man said the "Sheikh presented a number of Quanic verses,"
undoubably translations favoring his position. Finally, the remark that
"I really think if what you have said is true, the book is really a
very remarkable book, I agree." This is a polite way of saying I think
you may have lied to us.
Your evidence has failed to convince me of the reality of God. I
maintain my position, All Gods Are Lies
Fred Acquistapace
www.AllGodsAreLies.com
.
User: "MOTHER NATURE"

Title: Re: A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS: IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS 22 Sep 2005 01:31:51 PM
A scientist's interpretations of reference to embryology in the Qur'an
Reference to embryology in the Qur'an
By Keith L. Moore, Ph.D., F.I.A.C.
Published in the 16-31 Jan 2005 print edition of MG
Statements referring to human reproduction and development are
scattered throughout the Qur'=E2n. It is only recently that the
scientific meaning of some of these verses has been appreciated fully.
The long delay in interpreting these verses correctly resulted mainly
from inaccurate translations and commentaries and from a lack of
awareness of scientific knowledge.
Interest in explanations of the verses of the Qur'=E2n is not new.
People used to ask the prophet Muhammad all sorts of questions about
the meaning of verses referring to human reproduction. The Apostle's
answers form the basis of the Ahaadeeth literature.
The translations(*) of the verses from the Qur'=E2n which are
interpreted in this paper were provided by Sheik Abdul Majid Zendani, a
Professor of Islamic Studies in King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia.
"He makes you in the wombs of your mothers in stages, one after
another, in three veils of darkness."
This statement is from Surah. We do not know when it was realized that
human beings underwent development in the uterus (womb), but the first
known illustration of a fetus in the uterus was drawn by Leonardo da
Vinci in the 15th century. In the 2nd century A. D., Galen described
the placenta and fetal membranes in his book "On The Formation of the
Fetus." Consequently, doctors in the 7th century A. D. likely knew that
the human embryo developed in the uterus. It is unlikely that they knew
that it developed in stages, even though Aristotle had described the
stages of development of the chick embryo in the 4th century B. C. The
realization that the human embryo develops in stages was not discussed
and illustrated until the 15th century.
After the microscope was discovered in the 17th century by Leeuwenhoek
descriptions were made of the early stages of the chick embryo. The
staging of human embryos was not described until the 20th century.
Streeter (1941) developed the first system of staging which has now
been replaced by a more accurate system proposed by O'Rahilly
(1972).
"The three veils of darkness" may refer to:
the anterior abdominal wall;
the uterine wall; and
the amniochorionic membrane
(Fig. 1). Although there are other interpretations of this statement,
the one presented here seems the most logical from an embryological
point of view.
The "veils of darkness" are:
the anterior abdominal wall;
the uterine wall, and
the amniochorionic membrane.
This statement is from Surah. The drop or Nutfah has been interpreted
as the sperm or spermatozoon, but a more meaningful interpretation
would be the zygote which divides to form a blastocyst which is
implanted in the uterus ("a place of rest"). This interpretation is
supported by another verse in the Qur'=E2n which states that "a human
being is created from a mixed drop." The zygote forms by the union of a
mixture of the sperm and the ovum ("The mixed drop").
"Then We made the drop into a leech-like structure."
This statement is from Surah. The word "Alaqah" refers to a leech or
bloodsucker. This is an appropriate description of the human embryo
from days 7-24 when it clings to the endometrium of the uterus, in the
same way that a leech clings to the skin. Just as the leech derives
blood from the host, the human embryo derives blood from the decidua or
pregnant endometrium. It is remarkable how much the embryo of 23-24
days resembles a leech (Fig. 2). As there were no microscopes or lenses
available in the 7th century, doctors would not have known that the
human embryo had this leech-like appearance. In the early part of the
fourth week, the embryo is just visible to the unaided eye because it
is smaller than a kernel of wheat.
"Then of that leech-like structure, We made a chewed lump." This
statement is also from Surah 23:14. The Arabic word "Mudghah" means
"chewed substance or chewed lump." Toward the end of the fourth week,
the human embryo looks somewhat like a chewed lump of flesh
The chewed appearance results from the somites which resemble teeth
marks. The somites represent the beginnings or primordia of the
vertebrae.
"Then We made out of the chewed lump, bones, and clothed the bones in
flesh." This continuation of Surah 23:14 indicates that out of the
chewed lump stage, bones and muscles form. This is in accordance with
embryological development. First the bones form as cartilage models and
then the muscles (flesh) develop around them from the somatic mesoderm.
"Then We developed out of it another creature."
This next part of Surah 23:14 implies that the bones and muscles result
in the formation of another creature. This may refer to the human-like
embryo that forms by the end of the eighth week. At this stage it has
distinctive human characteristics and possesses the primordia of all
the internal and external organs and parts. After the eighth week, the
human embryo is called a fetus. This may be the new creature to which
the verse refers.
"And He gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding."
This part of Surah 32:9 indicates that the special senses of hearing,
seeing, and feeling develop in this order, which is true. The primordia
of the internal ears appear before the beginning of the eyes, and the
brain (the site of understanding) differentiates last.
"Then out of a piece of chewed flesh, partly formed and partly
unformed."
This part of Surah 22:5 seems to indicate that the embryo is composed
of both differentiated and undifferentiated tissues. For example, when
the cartilage bones are differentiated, the embryonic connective tissue
or mesenchyme around them is undifferentiated. It later differentiates
into the muscles and ligaments attached to the bones.
"And We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term."
This next part of Surah 22:5 seems to imply that God determines which
embryos will remain in the uterus until full term. It is well known
that many embryos abort during the first month of development, and that
only about 30% of zygotes that form, develop into fetuses that survive
until birth. This verse has also been interpreted to mean that God
determines whether the embryo will develop into a boy or girl.
The interpretation of the verses in the Qur'=E2n referring to human
development would not have been possible in the 7th century A. D., or
even a hundred years ago. We can interpret them now because the science
of modern Embryology affords us new understanding. Undoubtedly there
are other verses in the Qur'=E2n related to human development that will
be understood in the future as our knowledge increases.
(*) Even though the translations of the verses of the Qur'=E2n in the
above paper were provided by Sheik Abdul Majid Zendani, the links to
the translations in this page are from Yusuf Ali Qur'=E2n Translation:
http://qibla.msa.upenn .edu/alim_online/yali_trans/ yasurahl.htm
presented by the Alim Online since Sheikh Zendani's translation is not
available on the internet. (MSA- UTK)
Keith L. Moore is Professor of Anatomy and Associate Dean Basic
Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. M55
IAB, Canada
Source: The Journal of the Islamic Medical Association, Vol. 18, Jan-
June 1986, pp. 15-16
MOTHER NATURE
.
User: "Colin Day"

Title: Re: A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS: IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS 22 Sep 2005 05:40:21 PM
MOTHER NATURE wrote:

A scientist's interpretations of reference to embryology in the Qur'an

Reference to embryology in the Qur'an

By Keith L. Moore, Ph.D., F.I.A.C.
Published in the 16-31 Jan 2005 print edition of MG

Statements referring to human reproduction and development are
scattered throughout the Qur'ân. It is only recently that the
scientific meaning of some of these verses has been appreciated fully.
The long delay in interpreting these verses correctly resulted mainly
from inaccurate translations and commentaries and from a lack of
awareness of scientific knowledge.

If it required scientific knowledge to "interpret" the Koran correctly,
then why do we need the the Koran at all? And is Moore's interpretation
correct in the first place?


Interest in explanations of the verses of the Qur'ân is not new.
People used to ask the prophet Muhammad all sorts of questions about
the meaning of verses referring to human reproduction. The Apostle's
answers form the basis of the Ahaadeeth literature.

The translations(*) of the verses from the Qur'ân which are
interpreted in this paper were provided by Sheik Abdul Majid Zendani, a
Professor of Islamic Studies in King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia.

"He makes you in the wombs of your mothers in stages, one after
another, in three veils of darkness."

This statement is from Surah. We do not know when it was realized that
human beings underwent development in the uterus (womb), but the first
known illustration of a fetus in the uterus was drawn by Leonardo da
Vinci in the 15th century. In the 2nd century A. D., Galen described
the placenta and fetal membranes in his book "On The Formation of the
Fetus." Consequently, doctors in the 7th century A. D. likely knew that
the human embryo developed in the uterus. It is unlikely that they knew
that it developed in stages, even though Aristotle had described the
stages of development of the chick embryo in the 4th century B. C. The
realization that the human embryo develops in stages was not discussed
and illustrated until the 15th century.

How would anything develop, except in stages? One can tell by observing
a pregnant woman that the fetus gets larger over time.

After the microscope was discovered in the 17th century by Leeuwenhoek
descriptions were made of the early stages of the chick embryo. The
staging of human embryos was not described until the 20th century.
Streeter (1941) developed the first system of staging which has now
been replaced by a more accurate system proposed by O'Rahilly
(1972).
"The three veils of darkness" may refer to:

the anterior abdominal wall;

the uterine wall; and

the amniochorionic membrane

What about the mother's skin? Isn't that a "veil"?

(Fig. 1). Although there are other interpretations of this statement,
the one presented here seems the most logical from an embryological
point of view.


The "veils of darkness" are:

the anterior abdominal wall;

the uterine wall, and

the amniochorionic membrane.

This statement is from Surah. The drop or Nutfah has been interpreted
as the sperm or spermatozoon, but a more meaningful interpretation
would be the zygote which divides to form a blastocyst which is
implanted in the uterus ("a place of rest"). This interpretation is
supported by another verse in the Qur'ân which states that "a human
being is created from a mixed drop." The zygote forms by the union of a
mixture of the sperm and the ovum ("The mixed drop").

Until these "interpretations" precede rather then follow the science
that gives rise to them, your claims that they are "correct" is somewhat
tendentious. Correct, by what standard? If the standard of
interpretative correctness is conformity to science, then all literature
is correct. If the standard is something else, then is this the correct
interpretation?


"Then We made the drop into a leech-like structure."
This statement is from Surah. The word "Alaqah" refers to a leech or
bloodsucker. This is an appropriate description of the human embryo
from days 7-24 when it clings to the endometrium of the uterus, in the
same way that a leech clings to the skin. Just as the leech derives
blood from the host, the human embryo derives blood from the decidua or
pregnant endometrium. It is remarkable how much the embryo of 23-24
days resembles a leech (Fig. 2). As there were no microscopes or lenses
available in the 7th century, doctors would not have known that the
human embryo had this leech-like appearance. In the early part of the
fourth week, the embryo is just visible to the unaided eye because it
is smaller than a kernel of wheat.

But a fetus derives blood from its host throughout the pregnancy. Also,
blood flows through the fetus back to the mother. Does a leech
recirculate blood to its host?


"Then of that leech-like structure, We made a chewed lump." This
statement is also from Surah 23:14. The Arabic word "Mudghah" means
"chewed substance or chewed lump." Toward the end of the fourth week,
the human embryo looks somewhat like a chewed lump of flesh

Hmm. . . Right.


The chewed appearance results from the somites which resemble teeth
marks. The somites represent the beginnings or primordia of the
vertebrae.

"Then We made out of the chewed lump, bones, and clothed the bones in
flesh." This continuation of Surah 23:14 indicates that out of the
chewed lump stage, bones and muscles form. This is in accordance with
embryological development. First the bones form as cartilage models and
then the muscles (flesh) develop around them from the somatic mesoderm.


"Then We developed out of it another creature."

This next part of Surah 23:14 implies that the bones and muscles result
in the formation of another creature. This may refer to the human-like
embryo that forms by the end of the eighth week. At this stage it has
distinctive human characteristics and possesses the primordia of all
the internal and external organs and parts. After the eighth week, the
human embryo is called a fetus. This may be the new creature to which
the verse refers.

"And He gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding."

This part of Surah 32:9 indicates that the special senses of hearing,
seeing, and feeling develop in this order, which is true. The primordia
of the internal ears appear before the beginning of the eyes, and the
brain (the site of understanding) differentiates last.

Except that sight develops only after birth.

"Then out of a piece of chewed flesh, partly formed and partly
unformed."

This part of Surah 22:5 seems to indicate that the embryo is composed
of both differentiated and undifferentiated tissues. For example, when
the cartilage bones are differentiated, the embryonic connective tissue
or mesenchyme around them is undifferentiated. It later differentiates
into the muscles and ligaments attached to the bones.

"And We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term."
This next part of Surah 22:5 seems to imply that God determines which
embryos will remain in the uterus until full term. It is well known
that many embryos abort during the first month of development, and that
only about 30% of zygotes that form, develop into fetuses that survive
until birth. This verse has also been interpreted to mean that God
determines whether the embryo will develop into a boy or girl.

Isn't that largely determined at conception?

The interpretation of the verses in the Qur'ân referring to human
development would not have been possible in the 7th century A. D., or
even a hundred years ago. We can interpret them now because the science
of modern Embryology affords us new understanding. Undoubtedly there
are other verses in the Qur'ân related to human development that will
be understood in the future as our knowledge increases.

Why are you retrofitting the Koran to conform to scientific knowledge?

(*) Even though the translations of the verses of the Qur'ân in the
above paper were provided by Sheik Abdul Majid Zendani, the links to
the translations in this page are from Yusuf Ali Qur'ân Translation:
http://qibla.msa.upenn .edu/alim_online/yali_trans/ yasurahl.htm
presented by the Alim Online since Sheikh Zendani's translation is not
available on the internet. (MSA- UTK)

Keith L. Moore is Professor of Anatomy and Associate Dean Basic
Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. M55
IAB, Canada
Source: The Journal of the Islamic Medical Association, Vol. 18, Jan-
June 1986, pp. 15-16

MOTHER NATURE

Colin Day aa #1500
.
User: "MOTHER NATURE"

Title: Re: A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS: IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS 23 Sep 2005 02:08:47 AM
Dear Colin Day
You wrote:

If it required scientific knowledge to "interpret" the Koran correctly,
then why do we need the the Koran at all? And is Moore's interpretation
correct in the first place?

Scientific knowledge is not necessary to "interpret the" the Holy
Qur'an. However, science has been used by many to prove that certain
parts of the bible are in disagreement with the findings of modern
science which proves that they are not from God; as a book dictated by
an all knowing God can not contain errors. The same approach has been
used by non Muslims to prove that the Holy Qur'an was a false book,
written by a false prophet (an imposter), but the conclusions were
different.
Both scientific findings disprove the null hypothesis that Muhammad was
a false prophet. The fact that parts of the bible are not from God
supports Muhammad's claim that the original scriptures have been
tampered with. The fact that Qur'an contains knowledge only discovered
and established in the laboratory with the help of hi-tech equipment
not available to mankind in the 7nth century, proves beyond a shadow of
doubt that the Holy Qur'an is literally God's word addressing mankind.
The maker's User Manual that we discussed before.
A Muslim Law Court accepts the testimony of two witnesses not convicted
in an offence or crime which detracts from their testimony. In the West
the testimony of a forensic scientist is proof of guilt or innocence.
In the case of Professor Keith L. Moore we have the testimony of an
expert in his field, a forensic scientist who spent four years of
extensive research and included his findings in an academic text book
called The Developing Human. Such a testimony is valid in any Court of
Law on planet earth today and the prejudice of presumptuous false
witnesses does not detract from it one iota.
Cheers
MOTHER NATURE
.
User: "Colin Day"

Title: Re: A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS: IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS 23 Sep 2005 07:03:23 PM
MOTHER NATURE wrote:

Dear Colin Day
You wrote:


If it required scientific knowledge to "interpret" the Koran correctly,
then why do we need the the Koran at all? And is Moore's interpretation
correct in the first place?



Scientific knowledge is not necessary to "interpret the" the Holy
Qur'an. However, science has been used by many to prove that certain
parts of the bible are in disagreement with the findings of modern
science which proves that they are not from God; as a book dictated by
an all knowing God can not contain errors. The same approach has been
used by non Muslims to prove that the Holy Qur'an was a false book,
written by a false prophet (an imposter), but the conclusions were
different.
Both scientific findings disprove the null hypothesis that Muhammad was
a false prophet. The fact that parts of the bible are not from God
supports Muhammad's claim that the original scriptures have been
tampered with. The fact that Qur'an contains knowledge only discovered
and established in the laboratory with the help of hi-tech equipment
not available to mankind in the 7nth century, proves beyond a shadow of
doubt that the Holy Qur'an is literally God's word addressing mankind.
The maker's User Manual that we discussed before.

But it is your claim that the Koran contains knowledge that I challenge.
The fact that one can interpret it in a certain way does not mean that
it contained that knowledge. Also, you haven't answered my questions as
to the correctness of the claims.

A Muslim Law Court accepts the testimony of two witnesses not convicted
in an offence or crime which detracts from their testimony. In the West
the testimony of a forensic scientist is proof of guilt or innocence.

What if there are conflicting forensic scientists?

In the case of Professor Keith L. Moore we have the testimony of an
expert in his field, a forensic scientist who spent four years of
extensive research and included his findings in an academic text book
called The Developing Human. Such a testimony is valid in any Court of
Law on planet earth today and the prejudice of presumptuous false
witnesses does not detract from it one iota.

But if it is Professor Moore who is the false witness? What if ten
embryologists disagreed with him?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
User: "MOTHER NATURE"

Title: Re: A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS: IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS 24 Sep 2005 02:35:17 AM

Also, you haven't answered my questions as to the correctness of the claims.

I didn't make any claims and I didn't engage in any interpretation. I
have just accepted the testimony of an expert. Like when you visit your
Doctor. Unless you have strong reason to distrust the Doctor, you
wouldn't think twice about his prescription.
If you wish me to convince me that his testimony was false, you have to
give me evidence that he has some ulterior motivation to lie.
.
User: "Colin Day"

Title: Re: A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS: IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS 25 Sep 2005 05:51:31 PM
MOTHER NATURE wrote:

Also, you haven't answered my questions as to the correctness of the claims.



I didn't make any claims and I didn't engage in any interpretation. I
have just accepted the testimony of an expert. Like when you visit your
Doctor. Unless you have strong reason to distrust the Doctor, you
wouldn't think twice about his prescription.
If you wish me to convince me that his testimony was false, you have to
give me evidence that he has some ulterior motivation to lie.

I don't have to convince you of anything. You have failed to show that
the Koran really means wht Morse claims that it means, nor have you
shown that he is an expert in that field. Also, I am not a court of law,
so I am not obligated to deal with "expert" testimony as such.
Colin Day aa #1500
.


User: "MOTHER NATURE"

Title: Re: A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS: IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS 24 Sep 2005 02:17:23 AM
Dear Colin
You wrote:

The fact that one can interpret it in a certain way does not mean that
it contained that knowledge.

We are not talking about interpretation. Professor More is not an
exegist nor did he engage in interpretation. That is not his job. He
simply looked at contained in the Holy Qur'an, information pertaining
to his area of specialization, and studied the likelihood that it could
have been conceived by a man living in the seventh century. His
thoroughly researched conclusion was that it couldn't. It must have
been, as the book claims, from God.

What if there are conflicting forensic scientists?

There are none to the best of my knowledge. But if you know of any cite
it.

But if it is Professor Moore who is the false witness? What if ten
embryologists disagreed with him?

To invalidate the testimony of an forensic expert, you need to bring
evidence that he is not qualified as an expert, not simply disagree
with his conclusions. If you accept his qualification but doubt his
motivation, you should bring evidence to that effect.
I presented thirteen witnesses who, to varying degrees, supported the
witness of Professor Moore? Non of them was born a Muslim. They were
from various scientific nationalistic and religious backgrounds. If you
can show convincing evidence of their complicity and desire to mislead
justice present it.
However, I repeat, to be able to credibly counter the weight of my
witnesses, you need to explain the motivation of my witnesses and prove
that your witnesses have no motivation whatsoever to mislead justice.
When you make a statement like:
But if it is Professor Moore who is the false witness?
You have to have evidence that his his testimony was false and explain
his motivation. If you fail. It becomes incumbent upon you to declare
loudly that the Qur'an is from God.

PEACE
MOTHER NATURE
.
User: "Torch"

Title: Re: A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS: IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS 24 Sep 2005 06:31:10 AM
"MOTHER NATURE" <avatar1.shyke@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127546243.404480.242270@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Dear Colin

You wrote:

The fact that one can interpret it in a certain way does not mean that
it contained that knowledge.


We are not talking about interpretation. Professor More is not an
exegist nor did he engage in interpretation. That is not his job. He
simply looked at contained in the Holy Qur'an, information pertaining
to his area of specialization, and studied the likelihood that it could
have been conceived by a man living in the seventh century. His
thoroughly researched conclusion was that it couldn't. It must have
been, as the book claims, from God.

What if there are conflicting forensic scientists?


There are none to the best of my knowledge. But if you know of any cite
it.

But if it is Professor Moore who is the false witness? What if ten
embryologists disagreed with him?

To invalidate the testimony of an forensic expert, you need to bring
evidence that he is not qualified as an expert, not simply disagree
with his conclusions. If you accept his qualification but doubt his
motivation, you should bring evidence to that effect.
I presented thirteen witnesses who, to varying degrees, supported the
witness of Professor Moore? Non of them was born a Muslim. They were
from various scientific nationalistic and religious backgrounds. If you
can show convincing evidence of their complicity and desire to mislead
justice present it.
However, I repeat, to be able to credibly counter the weight of my
witnesses, you need to explain the motivation of my witnesses and prove
that your witnesses have no motivation whatsoever to mislead justice.
When you make a statement like:
But if it is Professor Moore who is the false witness?
You have to have evidence that his his testimony was false and explain
his motivation. If you fail. It becomes incumbent upon you to declare
loudly that the Qur'an is from God.

PEACE
MOTHER NATURE

If you are really serious about proving the existence of your god in a
scientific way then you will no doubt welcome this further evidence
"J. Needham spent almost 60 pages in his book "A history of embryology",
discussing ancient Greek, Indian and Egyptian embryology, than in less than
1 page he dismisses the entire Arabic tradition by concluding that "Arabic
science ... was not of great help to embryology". After listing some of the
verses in the Qur'an about embryology he dismisses them as "a
seventh-century echo of Aristotle and the Ayer-veda" . (J. Needham
(Cambridge, 2nd edition 1959) A History of Embryology, p. 82), in other
words a mixture of Greek and ancient Indian teachings."
.
User: "MOTHER NATURE"

Title: Re: A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS: IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS 24 Sep 2005 11:10:26 AM

"J. Needham spent almost 60 pages in his book "A history of embryology",

I think you need to raise this point with Professor Moore since he is
the expert, not me.
For me to disregard his testimony, I need evidence why, a non Muslim
scientist, would
lie to support the Qur'an rather than the bible. Normally zeal makes
people do anything to
support their own religion, philosophy, tradition etc. not somebody
else's religion.
The fact that J. Neeham spent sixty pages in his book does not tell
what level of qualification
he had, neither does it suggest that he was thorough and objective in
his approach nor does it
suggest that he was without ulterior motives.
Had Professor Moore been a Muslim by birth, then the testimony of an
equal figure could ligitimately
be used to disprove his testimony. However, being Christian by birth he
lacks the ulterior motives that
a non Muslim witness, equally qualified, naturally has.
.
User: "Torch"

Title: Re: A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS: IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS 24 Sep 2005 12:12:56 PM
"MOTHER NATURE" <avatar1.shyke@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127578225.975143.131410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

"J. Needham spent almost 60 pages in his book "A history of embryology",


I think you need to raise this point with Professor Moore since he is
the expert, not me.
For me to disregard his testimony, I need evidence why, a non Muslim
scientist, would
lie to support the Qur'an rather than the bible. Normally zeal makes
people do anything to
support their own religion, philosophy, tradition etc. not somebody
else's religion.
The fact that J. Neeham spent sixty pages in his book does not tell
what level of qualification
he had, neither does it suggest that he was thorough and objective in
his approach nor does it
suggest that he was without ulterior motives.
Had Professor Moore been a Muslim by birth, then the testimony of an
equal figure could ligitimately
be used to disprove his testimony. However, being Christian by birth he
lacks the ulterior motives that
a non Muslim witness, equally qualified, naturally has.

The workings of Professor Moore's mind is not my concern and should not be
yours either - your original post is A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS:
IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS - your claim is this:
The Quran contains scientific information not known to man in the 7th
century - therefore the Quran must be the word of god.
You use Professor Moore as an expert witness - unfortunately, being an
expert in contemporary embryology and not an expert in the history of
medicine, he does not seem suitably qualified. If you really are in the
business of discovering truth using the evidence based scientific method
then you have to consider ALL the evidence available not just the bits that
suit your premature conclusion. Here is some more evidence (please feel free
to independently check its veracity) that I suggest brings into question
your premise:
The account of the different stages in embryology described by the Qur'an
looks very similar to the 2nd century writings of Galen::
But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the
animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide
the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. The first is
that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of
the semen prevails (Arabic nutfah). At this time, Hippocrates too, the
all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as
we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still
calls it semen. But when it has been filled with blood (Arabic alaqa), and
heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now
a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the
substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of
semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such
a form semen but, as was said, foetus. The third period follows on this,
when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and
a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts (Arabic
mudghah). You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more
clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still,
that of the limbs. Later on they form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it,
indicating by the term their similarity to branches. The fourth and final
period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been
differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls
the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it
jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed (Arabic 'a new creation') ...
.... The time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to
bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and
around all the bones, and at the same time ... it made at the ends of the
bones ligaments that bind them to each other, and along their entire length
it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on
which it caused flesh to grow
You will also need to consider the possible ways in which this information
could get into the Quran:
"Mohammed chose a christian - Harets ben Kaladah - as a medical advisor who
was educated in the Nestonian school at Gondisapor. He would have been very
familar with the writings of Galen."
If you really want to form your world view using evidence then you have to
have the courage to confront that evidence that may not fit your
preconceived notions. I would also make the observation that this is very
dangerous ground for the religious. If you claim that the Quran is the word
of god because it contains scientific information that we subsequently
discover is true, what does it mean if we find it contains scientific
information that we subsequently discover is patently false???
.
User: "MOTHER NATURE"

Title: Re: A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS: IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS 24 Sep 2005 01:09:07 PM

unfortunately, being an expert in contemporary embryology and not an expert in the history of
medicine, he does not seem suitably qualified.

So you have taken the decision to disqualify Professor Moore.
Can you provide evidence of your qualification and your authority to
qualify or disqualify
witnesses on the subject under discission?
Once again you are assuming without evidence that professor Moore is
unqualified,
and that he is not aware of the history of research in his field. Only
you are privvy to
that knowledge.
I am afraid you haven't provided evidence for your allegations. You are
like the football fan
who hears the virdict of the referee and starts swearing that the
referee doesn't know what
he is talking about, Just because it wasn't to his liking.
The referee I am afraid is a Christian man who has no reason whatsoever
to fake evidence to
support Islam's Holy Book. You can argue from now until eternity that
Muhammad was copying
Galen's point of view. That won't change the fact that Professor Moore
came to his conclusion
regarding the Qur'an as being from Divine origine, not Galen or Al
Hareth Bin Kildah.
.
User: "Torch"

Title: Re: A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS: IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS 25 Sep 2005 01:47:10 AM
"MOTHER NATURE" <avatar1.shyke@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127585347.282647.110940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

unfortunately, being an expert in contemporary embryology and not an
expert in the history of
medicine, he does not seem suitably qualified.


So you have taken the decision to disqualify Professor Moore.

Can you provide evidence of your qualification and your authority to
qualify or disqualify
witnesses on the subject under discission?

So is professor Moore an expert in the history of medicine? I said he seems
unqualified - if you have evidence he is suitably qualified in this field
lets hear it.


Once again you are assuming without evidence that professor Moore is
unqualified,
and that he is not aware of the history of research in his field. Only
you are privvy to
that knowledge.
I am afraid you haven't provided evidence for your allegations.

Yes I have and you have completely ignored it.

You are
like the football fan
who hears the virdict of the referee and starts swearing that the
referee doesn't know what
he is talking about, Just because it wasn't to his liking.
The referee I am afraid is a Christian man who has no reason whatsoever
to fake evidence to
support Islam's Holy Book. You can argue from now until eternity that
Muhammad was copying
Galen's point of view. That won't change the fact that Professor Moore
came to his conclusion

But this fact is not the issue! I dont know and I dont care why Moore came
to his conclusion - the fact is, if my evidence is true then he is quite
simply wrong

regarding the Qur'an as being from Divine origine, not Galen or Al
Hareth Bin Kildah.

Look this is quite simple - you challenged atheists saying you had
irrefutable evidence that god exists.That evidence was that the Qurans
account of foetal development was not contemporary scientific knowledge at
the time it was written.
Now I dont care who is saying this - you, professor Moore, the Queen of
Sheeba. I have provided evidence that this knowledge pre-dates the Quran by
at least 500 years - this evidence is either true or false. If it false then
please say why - if its true then its up to you and professor Moore to
explain why you have reached a conclusion which is contrary to the available
evidence. Its not up to me to speculate on why you and he have reached this
conclusion.
.











User: ""

Title: Re: A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS: IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS 25 Sep 2005 10:15:51 AM
MOTHER NATURE wrote:

Dear Atheistic friends

In the linke beneath there is video footage from scientists who
conducted years of research some of which is replicable in the
laboratory to find out whether God in indeed a reality and has
communicated with man. Please check the link and let me hear your
views:

http://www.islampedia.com/ijaz/Html/Scientist_All/

Chers
MOTHER NATURE

LAY OFF THE CHEAP WINE YOU MORON...
.

User: "Mike Painter"

Title: Re: A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS: IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS 22 Sep 2005 12:08:22 PM
MOTHER NATURE wrote:

Dear Atheistic friends

In the linke beneath there is video footage from scientists who
conducted years of research some of which is replicable in the
laboratory to find out whether God in indeed a reality and has
communicated with man. Please check the link and let me hear your
views:

http://www.islampedia.com/ijaz/Html/Scientist_All/

Chers
MOTHER NATURE

Well I just read professor Armstrongs comment and there is no mention of
god, no mention of research to find out if a god exists and nothing to
actually tell us the context of his comment.
But I'm sure you and Cher will be convinced otherwise.
.

User: "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrichs effort"

Title: Re: A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS: IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS 22 Sep 2005 11:59:12 AM
MOTHER NATURE wrote:

Dear Atheistic friends

In the linke beneath there is video footage from scientists who
conducted years of research some of which is replicable in the
laboratory to find out whether God in indeed a reality and has
communicated with man. Please check the link and let me hear your
views:

http://www.islampedia.com/ijaz/Html/Scientist_All/

Pretty vague and unimpressive, and certainly not "irrifutable evidence
that god exists." A lot of assertion that the Quran says something
(which isn't actually stated), and some scientists pretty much
responding, "If that's true, I don't have an explanation." Whoa.
For example, from
http://www.islampedia.com/ijaz/Html/Scientist_All/Professor%20Siaved.htm:
"What is your opinion of what you have seen in the Qur'=E2n and the
Sunnah with regard to the secrets of the Universe, which scientists
only discovered now?"
And the professor responds:
"I think it seems to me very, very mysterious, almost unbelievable. I
really think if what you have said is true, the book is really a very
remarkable book, I agree."
Or
http://www.islampedia.com/ijaz/Html/Scientist_All/Professor%20Armstrong.htm:
"You have seen and discovered for yourself the true nature of modern
Astronomy by means of modern equipment, rockets, and satellites
developed by man. You have also seen how the same facts were mentioned
by the Qur'an fourteen centuries ago. So what is your opinion?"
And this professor responds:
"That is a difficult question which I have been thinking about since
our discussion here. I am impressed at how remarkably some of the
ancient writings seem to correspond to modern and recent Astronomy. I
am not a sufficient scholar of human history to project myself
completely and reliably into the circumstances that 1400 years ago
would have prevailed.
Certainly, I would like to leave it at that, that what we have seen is
remarkable, it may or may not admit of scientific explanation, there
may well have to be something beyond what we understand as ordinary
human experience to account for the writings that we have seen."
.

User: "atheist@home"

Title: Re: A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS: IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS 22 Sep 2005 01:19:53 PM
On 22 Sep 2005 09:25:26 -0700, "MOTHER NATURE"
<avatar1.shyke@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Atheistic friends

In the linke beneath there is video footage from scientists who
conducted years of research some of which is replicable in the
laboratory to find out whether God in indeed a reality and has
communicated with man. Please check the link and let me hear your
views:

http://www.islampedia.com/ijaz/Html/Scientist_All/

Any one of these guys can insist that he encountered a talking donkey
but if he doesn't produce the donkey I'm not going to believe him.
So where are the quotes from the passages that impressed them?
atheist@home#1554
.

User: "Barry OGrady"

Title: Re: A CHALLENGE TO ALL ATHEISTS: IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS 22 Sep 2005 05:49:01 PM
On 22 Sep 2005 09:25:26 -0700, "MOTHER NATURE" <avatar1.shyke@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Atheistic friends

In the linke beneath there is video footage from scientists who
conducted years of research some of which is replicable in the
laboratory to find out whether God in indeed a reality and has
communicated with man. Please check the link and let me hear your
views:

http://www.islampedia.com/ijaz/Html/Scientist_All/

Where do you find such nutcases?


Chers
MOTHER NATURE

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
.


  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.3585     pg.2749     pg.2106     pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER