₦airaland Forum

ricadelide:
the quote was; 'and how reasonable she is'
and that was what my question was directed at, not 'which religion got it right'.

And the question was how would I determine (or "judge" the God is reasonable. The reply was, '"a question along the lines of "which religion got it right, if you don't mind me asking" should be a good start."' The God's response - if there is one - would probably give me an impression of what the God is like. Do you understand?

maybe you should try learning addressing issues rather than skirting them. or rather, admitting you mis-spoke, or rather, mistyped.

You either skimmed very quickly through my post or you just skipped the reading and zeroed in on one very small part of it. Nothing to be done if either was the case.

whitedove:
SEUN,iam a firm believer in jesus christ

The rest of your post probably reveals why you are a firm believer - no offence to any other firm believers.

T. H Huxley (pen name) has written a worthy rebuttal to the claims made. However, before I copy/paste it, I'd just like to add that the kind of reubbish that involves liberally translating a verse, then wringing it out of shape, deceptively, to pretend that it predicts something it clearly doesn't (and is strangely revealed [b]ONLY[/B] after it has been discovered by science) actually belittles your faith - not that it needs any help in that department.

T H:

Discussion one: The Islamic Phases - Timing

Taken together, the three phases of Islamic embryology take 120 days to go from conception to the point where the embryo becomes a fetus (i.e. an identifiable human baby), or right around 17 weeks. Does this reflect what we now know about embryonic development.

The answer is patently, no. The human embryo becomes a fetus around week 9, or roughly half the time Islamic embryology requires. By day 56 the fetus is essentially a complete, though tiny, human being with all organ systems in place, and all tissues developed. This is right in the middle of what Islam calls the “alaquah” phase. In other words, the developing person is already a complete human being at a point where the hadith insists it (not he or she) still has almost three weeks remaining as a “clot of congealed blood.”

In fact, there are no developmental milestones which can be mapped to the three 40 day periods required by Islamic embryology, even though they are stressed in several authoritative ahadith.

Conclusion: The hadith is demonstrably wrong concerning the timing of embryologic development.



Discussion two: The Islamic Phases – Description

The three Islamic phases of development are described in a very visual way, allowing for an informed evaluation of the accuracy of those descriptions. This might be expected if for no other reason than that during the Prophet’s day, there was not even the idea of a microscope, and any descriptions offered would reasonably be of objects that were visible to an unaided eye. And this is exactly what we find.

And certainly, each of the three Islamic stages is described at a visible level of scale. A drop of seed, a clot of blood, a lump of flesh; all of them are objects of a size with which the ancient Arabs would have been familiar.

The “Drop of Seed” Phase (Nutfah)

There is little to no debate among Muslims as to the meaning of the word, “nutfah.” It is a “drop of seed” or “drop of semen” of the sort that would have been familiar to any adult Arab male. The Arabs rightly understood (as did all of their non-Arab neighbors) that semen was necessary to begin the process of procreation. But, exactly as with all their non-Arab neighbors, the writers of the Qu’ran and the hadith did not seem to understand that there was an egg produced by the mother that is fertilized by the male’s semen.

The Arabs believed that the woman served simply as an incubator for a child that was fully contained in the father’s seed. There was no understanding of the actual biology of sexual reproduction, and no such understanding is apparent in the Qu’ran.

Instead, the Qu’ran tells us that the “drop of seed” remains exactly that (a drop of seed) for the entire nutfah phase (40 days according to Bukhari and Muslim). What actually IS happening during those 40 days, and how might it be said to resemble a “drop of seed?”

The actual “drop of seed” provided by the male dissipates within minutes of ejaculation, so even before conception, the literal “drop of seed” no longer exists. The case could certainly be made that the fertilized egg resembles a seed until about day 13 or fourteen, but the “drop” is long gone, replaced with a microscopic egg that moves through a period called the “blastocyst.” But by the beginning of the third week, the embryo has already begun to differentiate into a trilaminar embryo with the three layers of ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm. A mere two and a half weeks after conception, the embryo no longer looks anything like a “drop of seed,” while the Islamic tradition indicates that the nutfah stage should last for an additional three weeks.

By day 40 of actual embryonic development (when the “drop” stage should be just ending and the “clot” stage beginning) the embryo is actually very well advanced. Measuring some 11 millimeters long, and the nervous system is well along its development. The embryo has eyes and ears, all four limbs have begun to form, the heart bulge is prominent. It bears no resemblance at this point to either a “drop of seed” or a “leech-like clot.”

Interim Conclusion: The Qu’ran is in error describing the embryo as a “drop of seed” for any significant period of time, and certainly wrong in assigning a 40 day period to such a phase.

The “Leech-Like Clot” Phase (Alaqah)

The word “alaqah” is a bit more ambiguous than “nutfah,” and so has been translated a bit more flexibly by Islamic apologists. Although consistently translated as a “clot of blood” by multiple translators, there are a handful of instances where it is rendered as “a leech-like clot.” This is the phase that (according to Bukhari and Muslim) should last from about day 41 to day 80 after conception.

Among the many images of Allah’s creative power reflected in the Qu’ran and the hadith, the image of man having been created from a clot of blood is one of the most common, showing up over a dozen times in the Qu’ran, Bukhari and Islam alone.

What actually IS happening during those 40 days, and how might it be said to resemble a “leech-like clot?”

The period of development covered by the “alaqah” stage includes from week six until week eleven after conception. The first two weeks of this “phase” actually encompass the final two weeks of embryonic development, for at that point the baby is essentially completely formed, and from here on out is known as a fetus.

Interestingly, at no time during this period (or any period for that matter) does the embryo or fetus resemble a “clot.” And while dependence of the placenta might be described as being vaguely “leech-like” in that it is attached to the uterine wall, no one would ever confuse the embryo or fetus with a leech.

This is as good a point as any to point out that embryonic development is essentially over by day 56, or in less than one half of the time described by Islamic embryology.

For over three weeks of the supposed “alaqah” phase, rather than a “leech-like clot” the fetus is actually a fully formed human being, ranging in size from 35 mm to about 80 mm in length.

Interim Conclusion: The Qu’ran and hadith are in error describing the embryo as a “leech-like clot” for any period of time, and certainly wrong in assigning the period from 41 to 80 days for such a phase.



The “Lump of Flesh” Phase – (Mudghah)

The Arabic word “Mudghah” is uniformly described as a “lump” or “morsel of flesh.” Sometimes, it is more descriptively referred to as a “chewed lump of meat.” According to the hadith, this phase would cover day 81 to 120 of fetal development, or weeks 12 through 17.

However, rather than a “lump” of anything, this period is one primarily of increasing size for the already fully formed fetus. During this period of time the fetus grows finger and toenails, begins to grow hair, and by the end of it the mother is beginning to feel the child’s movements. At no time during these weeks does the fetus look like anything other than an obvious human being.

If there were anytime during which the embryo might be described as a “lump of flesh,” that would have been much earlier, perhaps during the fourth week. But even then, the embryo was quite organized and complex, hardly “chewed” in any sense of the word.

Interim Conclusion: The Qu’ran and hadith are in error describing the embryo as a “morsel of flesh” for any significant period of time, and certainly wrong in assigning the period from 81 to 120 days for such a phase.

Conclusion: The three Qu’ranic phases are impossible to conform with actual embryonic development, and that problem is only magnified by the timing of those phases as prescribed by the hadith. There are no actual phases that can be correlated to nutfah, alaqah or mudghah, and the level of development that Islam asserts takes 120 days actually takes less than half of it.



Discussion 3 – Gender

According to multiple ahadith, it is only after the mudghha phase (days 81-120) that an angel of the Lord determines the gender of the baby. But in fact, modern genetics shows that the gender of the baby is determined at the moment of conception, and is therefore already set some four months before Islam asserts the question is even asked of Allah.

Conclusion: The authors of the Qu’ran and the hadith had no idea as to the genetic nature of gender, and assumed wrongly that it was assigned by Allah months after it was actually determined by genetics. The Islamic model is wrong again.

Some Notes on the Interpretations of Dr. Keith Moore

Dr. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D., F.I.A.C. of the Department of Anatomy, University of Toronto, Canada, has become a favorite of Islamic apologists ever since he accepted an invitation to produce a special edition of his Embryology Text Book specifically for use by Muslim students in Islamic Universities.

In articles published widely across Islamic web sites, Dr. Moore goes on the record to provide a generous assessment of the Qu’ran and hadith in the light of modern knowledge about embryology. But a review of his “analysis” shows the extent to which he had to twist both the Islamic scriptures and modern science in order to get the “facts” to correlate.

Specifically, Moore’s intellectual lapses are these:

1) He liberally translates Arabic into terms that no Arabic speaker would consider justified, but that allows him to pretend the Arabic is closer to truth than it really is. For example, in spite of the fact that almost three dozen translations of “alaqah” found on line never once exclude the word “clot,” Moore writes instead that “The word "alaqah" refers to a leech or bloodsucker.”

2) He completely ignores the timing of phases dictated by the hadith, for to consider them renders even his mistranslation unintelligeble. For example, after mistranslating “alaqah” to mean “a leech or bloodsucker,” he then compares it to the human embryo at 24 days gestation. But 24 days is still firmly within the “nutfah” phase, when the embryo should actually look like a “drop of seed.” He does the same with “mudghah,” comparing it with the embryo at 28 days, still in the “nutfah” phase and only four days later than he had assigned to “alaqah.”

One might speculate on the reasons Dr. Moore might have for this travesty of embryology, but actually the answer is a simple one. He was apparently quite well paid for essentially no real additional work. The textbook he delivered to the Saudi Universities that commissioned the work is titled, "The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology with Islamic Additions." (ISBN 0-7216-6472-5).

The base textbook is work that Moore had apparently completed years before, while the “Islamic Additions” appear to be the work of an Abdul-Majeed A. Azzindani, and not Dr. Moore’s at all.

And an interesting side bar (of no real importance, but entertaining none the less) is that the Acknowledgments for the book recognize a number of “distinguished scholars” who supported the book with time or money. And number 6 on the list?

Sheik Osamah bin Ladin.

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/huxley/islamic_embyology.htm

ricadelide:
LOL, you must really think highly of yourself if you think you'd be GOd's judge of how 'reasonable she(sic) is'.

I think you've gotten the wrong impression. It isn't thinking highly of oneself to be able believe that the characteristics of another being - whether of a higher station or lower one - can be determined.

Pray, tell me, how do you intend to do that? Ask him (sorry, her) some questions about physics and mathematics, conduct an examination, and so on - am running out of ideas.

A question along the lines of: "which religion got it right, if you don't mind me asking" should be a good start. Obviously, if the reply is "I'll rip you to shreds for daring to ask me a question" then I guess I'd have a prety good idea.

SOme posts never stop baffling me. No wonder; James 4;6

A baffle a day helps impress the day upon the memory. No wonder: Vladimir remembers; Waiting for Godot

Will you consider marrying someone outside your denomination? yes or no?, your opinion.

Yes.

1k001:
Atheists claim that there is no supreme being and no life after death right? That's fair enough but just one question to yiz: What if there is a God and there is life after death what will you do then.

Try to find out which God it is, if any of teh religions got it right, and how reasonable she is.

TayoD:
@kAG,

Your statement betrays your shallow knowledge of what our faith (particular reference to Christianity) is all about.

Or it doesn't. Christianity, in general, encourages both dogmatism and close-mindedness to concepts and people that are not from the doctrine. In fact, it isn't out of place to hear Christians cite verses like "do not be unequally yoked -" and "flee from all semblance of evil" when faced with ideas that may make them think comprehensively about both their faith. Of course,not all Christians are like that, but most are. By the way, I'm sure you know Christianity isn't the only religion, yes?

I seriously doubt that. Was it shown by experiment or by mathematical approximations? Please refer us to such discovery.

I already did.

somze:
@ K A GThere are certain scientific theories people like moi stays well clear of (yes even in university it was wahala, maybe becuz too much maths ). A few of them are
General Relativity - There is "special" too but for me they are brothers
Quantum mechanics - i know the how to get to most places i'm going to and believe me i do not want to go to a photon, electron or the likes

I can empathise, even though I tried learning the basics by myself.

Why I brought this up is virtual particle is one of those terms that scientist pop up to explain stuff. Well quantum explains(predicts) it and anything quantum explains is LAW or so they say.

It works and if modern science still used law, yes, it would be a law.

First gravity is a force, then general relativity says its not a force now quantum says it is and gravitons (virtual particles for gravity) play a role. And did you know that quantum does not agree with general relativity, thats why the refined special one came up or I think thats what the damn lecturer said. Who knows maybe i was dosing off?

From what I hear, theoretical physicists are still trying to find the grand unified theory that will unite the observations of relativity and quantum theory. That doesn't negate the existence of virtual particles nor does it negate the "something from nothing" idea they represent.

If you do understand it as anything other than that please do well to explain in ENGLISH.

No, it was fine.

somze:
@K A GI seriously disagree with that. Dont know where you got it from anyway. Quantum (more of mathematics - thank God for graduation) has been use to precisely explain and describe a lot of phenomena - mostly related to atomic blah blah blah!!! but not that something can ever come from nothing.

Virtual particles.

But really don't we get tired of these cycles - christians, atheist, islamists. Well i guess it has some degree of fun. Thats actually the main thing we gain because no one ever gets converted over these arguments discussions.

I know people who have been converted in all three directions (and other directions not mentioned) based on these internet discussions and arguments.

Always nice to battle chat with you man, thesame goes for nferyn too.

Same.

nferyn:
I'm not smart enough for physics, so it must suck. There are some other people here though that have an understanding of physics that is far more profound than either you or me Can't you see, it's obvious that those lacking the capacity to discern a creator when being confronted with a creation are incapable of understanding anyway. QED

LoL. Reminds me of the hundreds of proof for God thing.

TayoD:
@nferyn,

Arent you Atheists guilty of what you are acusing me of? You want everything explained and justifiable to the senses before it is accepted as truth.

Not me. Can't speak for other atheists, though.

The problem is that you are not able to do that to explain away a reality called God.

Except God isn't a reality (see what I did there?).

Seun:
"We don't know yet" is an acceptable answer in science. We don't have to claim to know everything.

Indeed. I get bemused when I see people, usually theist, get annoyed or smug at the fact scientists aren't just going crazy making up stuff to all the questions they have.

TayoD:
@Seun,

Just as "we were wrong" is an acceptable phrase in science.

Yep; dogmatism and extreme closemindedness should be left at the altar of religion.

It is funny how science admits it's finite knowledge and yet doesn't give room to the possibility that there is indeed a God somewhere.

You've badly misunderstood science if that's what you think. Science does ( and most scientists do too) leave room for the possibility of a God somewhere; however, since theists have assured everyone God is untestable, extremely supernatural and transcendent (when it suits them/him/her) science has no choice but to leave any Gods out of any attempts of discovery.

somze:
I see nferyn, KAG and Seun are at it again - affirming their total faith in atheism - but again the topic of this thread was only so inviting and must have spurred them on.

Well, you know us; although, I haven't affirmed my faith in atheism and I seriously doubt that's even possible.

One thing i can't really seem to get is how an atheist one can claim existence is natural when how the very start of existence according to them is unnatural - nothing produced something, produced BB and all.

I haven't said nor implied that the big bang was unnatural (whatever that means this days). Also, the quantum world has shown that something can come from nothing. In any case, the Big Bang may not have been "something from nothing".

Do we really exist or is this all a mirage? I'll stick to an old philosopher - "i know so i am".

I think therefore I am?

Now if I am where did I come from? Atheist of course have a good answer for that - something that is not. Conclulsion? Hence I do not exist.

Crap!

You need to brush up on the logic aspect of philosophy and on your atheists' FAQ.

TayoD:
@kAG,
So how did Eros and Gaia come into being?

Khaos; Aether and Hemera.

I knew someone will fall for this.

You're psychic.

So how did the inanimate come into being?

The question isn't how did inanimate come into being, it's of all the plausible explanations and routes which was the one that started the life that eventually became us. There are a number of ways the inanimate could have become animate and eventually life. The one that I like particularly and bring up so often is Sidney Fox's protocells theory: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=protocells&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Again how do you explain Baryogenesis?

I tried that a few times in the past, nobody got it and it took me forever to not only understand it to a limited degree but to try to retain and explain the little I knew. If you want to know start by reading the wiki link I gave. Never mind, I found what I wrote before:

There's probably a mistake or two, and it is theoretical, but:

"Matter is everything that is constituted of elementary fermions, and has mass", which would make protons and neutrons matter by definition; and protons and neutrons are composed of [three] quarks respectively. So basically, quark clumps are what make up basic matter.


Anyway, we know that matter is basically anything that has mass and fermions. What’s the origin of fermions?

Particles, which are what fermions are, and anti-particles are created when energy fluctuates at the most quantum level. The two collide with each other usually, and return to energy, however inflation can result in a repulsive gravitational pull, which causes the particle and anti-particle to be ripped apart before they can collide, which results in free particles – fermions.


Fermions interacted with the Higgs field* and gained mass, which resulted in - you guessed it - matter.

Clearly, I've taken the liberty of oversimplifying what is indeed a very exhausting and complicated field of study, and I have been as brief as possible, so those that feel an urge to read more can either go through Wiki, or pick up a book on that deals with String theory, baryogenesis, or something similar. Those in the know would also have noted that I didn't mention bosons, but that's because I don't think there's a need to go into that.

Baryogenesis can only occur when you have matter (particles). How did the particles come to be? How was that matter created in the first place?

You didn't even bother clicking the link, did you? Above.

TayoD:
@Seun,

How shallow! So who are the parents of the first life-form on earth?

They didn't have names, but I prefer to call them Eros and Gaia.

Was it inanimate tango-ing with inanimate to create animate?

Eventually, yes.

Or putting it in context of the law of conservation of mass, how could matter be created without a prior matter? Kindly explain without a violation of that law!

Baryogenesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryogenesis Physics sucks anyway.

mrpataki:
Arguing with an atheist is equivalent to trying to hold a conversation with a piece of rock.

For Christ is the solid rock!

I see. Any one want to do a psychoanalysis, or should I?

In their own world of madness, they believe they exist because they choose to exist.

And people think fundamentalist Christians are ignorant - I can't see why.

TayoD:
@nferyn,

Because it takes some degree of madness to see a creation and insists there is no Creator.

Anyone reminded of that sweet but naive old lady that insisted that it takes a special kind of madness to insist that the Earth, which feels stationary to our "common sense", is, not only moving, but whirling through space extremely fast. Madness? Maybe we that fancy ourselves children of the modern age of breathtaking science discoveries and unimaginable facts are mad; but oh, what a madness!

chumakk:
if christ come come now what will you do and where do expect to be in world-heaven OR hell?

Heaven. Except, of course, if I have to go to Mexico to see Christ come as a result of a mexican prostitute.

uchetobi:
If Xtianity is a sham. I'd rather take my chance with it now than to find out later that it was real and i lost out. But its no sham. The Holy spirit is so real

I think we should have a "how many ways can Pascal be twisted" competition. Dibs on the atheist and pop-culture Gods versions

davidylan:
an agglomeration of those whose consciences prick them daily and have to assure themselves

I agree; there really can't be any other reason for people, particularly Christians, continually posting terrible analogies that really don't address any issues logically. If you want an analogy that works, look up Flew's one.

and not us that indeed God does not exist.

Exactly.

Those of us who have felt His power know better.

Blessed be his horned hooves?