Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eddier, see QURAN and Science

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Eddier, see QURAN and Science

    1.Embyriology (compare with Khan's article)

    "A Scientist's Interpretation of References to Embryology in the Qur'an
    Keith L. Moore, Ph.D., F.I.A.C."
    Address all correspondence to:
    Keith L. Moore, Ph.D, F.I.A.C., Professor of Anatomy and Associate Dean Basic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M55 IAB, Canada.

    http://www.quran.org.uk/ieb_quran_embryology.htm


    2.The Holy Qur'an and Modern Science

    Taken from "The Origin of Man", by Dr. Maurice Bucaille.
    http://www.quran.org.uk/ieb_quran_science.htm


  • #2
    Originally posted by Voice
    1.Embyriology (compare with Khan's article)

    "A Scientist's Interpretation of References to Embryology in the Qur'an
    Keith L. Moore, Ph.D., F.I.A.C."
    Address all correspondence to:
    Keith L. Moore, Ph.D, F.I.A.C., Professor of Anatomy and Associate Dean Basic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M55 IAB, Canada.

    http://www.quran.org.uk/ieb_quran_embryology.htm


    2.The Holy Qur'an and Modern Science

    Taken from "The Origin of Man", by Dr. Maurice Bucaille.
    http://www.quran.org.uk/ieb_quran_science.htm

    Voice, thanks for the references here and in your former posts. However, these would better serve the authors of the articles that we have been discussing, basically, that of Denis Giron and that of the other one who caught your attention, i.e., Mr. Khan. Obviously, you do not consider either of these two authors as qualified either in resources, nor fluent in the Arabic language. And, therefore, in your point of view both are wrong in the premises and conclusions which they make in their respective articles.

    Well, okay, each and everyone is entitled to their respective points of view. But if they are wrong, or more importantly can be proved to be wrong, then they ought to retract their erroneous points of view. That is what common sense would require.

    As of yet, I have not seen any retractions on their part. Perhaps, they should go and read more about the Quran and broaden their horizon to as much of the data on interpretations of it that they can absorb.

    Now, on the issue that I took with your assessment of accepting flora and fauna speaking in the language of humans, it is according to Logic (philosophically) a logical fallacy, but when used in Literature can be acceptable as a literary device (although still logically fallacious) in terms of what in literature is called "poetic license". Any story can be enlivened by such a literary device, especially where children are involved in reading such literature.

    The Qur'an, as I see it, is not written to be literature, nor living or enlivened literature, nor history, but as you said is basically concerned with MORAL (ethics). And, of course, claims to be the true moral code. Therefore, it behooves the Book that it give clear and unequivocal orders or injunctions, without contradictions nor infantile abusurdities, which, however, attractive or alluring in helping children to learn the moral code of the book, will also last them a lifetime as adults. And, perhaps, based on your support of that code, it might last you a lifetime, too.

    E.1: TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK - V.I. Lenin

    Comment


    • #3

      yes. Quran although scientifically accurate, it is not meant to be scientific book. Quran also is consider by the arabs to be the ultimate literature written in Arabic. At the time of early islam, people were coming from around Arabia to hear Quran, to enjoy it unique style of literature, many were converted that way.. by just hearing Quran. That's why the enemies of islam at that time (esp. Tribe of Quraish, prevented people from hearing Quran, and called it witchy.

      as for the resources.. yes.. those people -if they really seek truth, or scientific research- they should have read a lot before writing..
      but if they want only to defame Quran, or just to speak against it.. they will do and will not change their minds whatever evidence they confront.

      it is human nature that he don't want to change his mind even if he is wrong.

      for talking objects.. for a religionist, GOD can let any object talk (by the very literal meaning).. which is illogical in the noraml every day life.. but that's what Miracle is about.. illogical event..

      and that's the nature of religion.. illogical things.. by our standard.. but if we logically proved GOD.. proved that GOD is who sent the religion, then it becomes logical to believe GOD..even if we did not understand the logic behind it.. for example.. why GOD chose Mecca, Jerusalem ,.. to be holy places... why not Babylon, Thebes!!
      Why we had to pray 5 times not 6 or 7.. why fasting in Ramadan not any other month of our choice.. why jews had to weep in special way in front of a wall..can't do it in any other wall.. why christians had to do theri ritual the way it is..!!

      Comment


      • #4
        btw.. for academic honesty.. i told you that Quran is scientifcally accurate.. HOWEVER:::

        there is one point that Quran comes in disagreement with modern science without being explainable any other way in Quran.. which is the CREATION OF MAN..
        Quran states clearly that God created Adam from earth clay/mud.. it can't be interpreted in anyway to fit modern science of man being evolved from previous species.

        However, i read Quran several times and did not find a clear indication about how GOD created OTHER LIVING FORMS.. although muslims refuse the evolution theory completely on base of being contradicting Quran, i found that only the part concerning creation of human is the contradictory. When i asked several Sheiks (clerics) and discussed it in some forums,, no body was able to bring me an islamic text (even from the weakest Hadith) that is against evolution of other animals!!


        Comment


        • #5
          Opps you May Get Flak from the Jib on This ....

          Originally posted by Voice
          btw.. for academic honesty.. i told you that Quran is scientifcally accurate.. HOWEVER:::

          there is one point that Quran comes in disagreement with modern science without being explainable any other way in Quran.. which is the CREATION OF MAN..
          Quran states clearly that God created Adam from earth clay/mud.. it can't be interpreted in anyway to fit modern science of man being evolved from previous species.

          However, i read Quran several times and did not find a clear indication about how GOD created OTHER LIVING FORMS.. although muslims refuse the evolution theory completely on base of being contradicting Quran, i found that only the part concerning creation of human is the contradictory. When i asked several Sheiks (clerics) and discussed it in some forums,, no body was able to bring me an islamic text (even from the weakest Hadith) that is against evolution of other animals!!

          Oops, Voice you may draw a hot response on this one about evolution from the Jibaro, since he is totally against accepting any type of evolution whatsoever.

          Although, he seemed obscurant himself, the way he called the Book an obscure one, and backed out of any further discussion, (which appears to me to be an act of cowardice on his part) even if he is a bona fide lay preacher of the Pentecostal denomination of Christianity.

          Your position, if the Sheiks have not overlooked an islamic text to the contrary against evolution, seems to be amenable to accepting some sort of creative evolution, at least with regard to other animals. Man, who is a member of the animal kingdom, too, seems to be the exception to that. And the Book, the Torah, and the New Testament, if I recall correctly, all accept that man was created from the clay of earth.




          E.1: TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK - V.I. Lenin

          Comment


          • #6

            Well. Such topic is hot.. for me GOD can create instantly, and can create on stages.. from what we see, the evolutionary way of creation seem to be the preferred style of GOD.
            Even for Adam, we have in QURAN (and i guess also bible and turah) that he was made from CLAY.. but no mention of what is in between.
            as for other animals, some muslims used story of Noah, to contradict Evolution.. imagining that Noah took on board all animals of the world... my reply was that we don't know from scripture if flood was total on earth or regional.. and the animals Noah took had already evolved.. (whatever the era of Noah.. it was certainly millions of years after life began..)

            ** Q to think about:: Did Noah really took pair of each animal? how can they fit in a ship??
            A: ((MY OWN)):: it could be not ALL but SOME.. or he got them as stem cells

            if we can shift to the more scientific part.. i have read whatever text i can get about Evolution,, but as science i am not convinced by it.. it seems to me an overshoot.. i can imagine Dogs, and wolfs from common ancestor.. or even mammals from a common ancestor.. but that all are from common ancestor!!! well i am waiting to see what latest researches say.. the latest was refuting any link or even intermarriages between Homosapiens, and Neanderthal.. know about the subject?

            Comment


            • #7
              It's Accepted Science....

              [

              if we can shift to the more scientific part.. i have read whatever text i can get about Evolution,, but as science i am not convinced by it.. it seems to me an overshoot.. i can imagine Dogs, and wolfs from common ancestor.. or even mammals from a common ancestor.. but that all are from common ancestor!!! well i am waiting to see what latest researches say.. the latest was refuting any link or even intermarriages between Homosapiens, and Neanderthal.. know about the subject? [/B][/QUOTE]

              Voice, I see no problems with orthodox evolution. It is publically agreed upon by experts in that field that Darwinian Evolution is an accepted science that has been proved.

              As to the issue between Homo Sapiens and the Neanderthal, I have done research in Social Anthropology and Paleontology, too.

              In the case of the Neanderthal, if I recall correctly they were extant in the time of the Cro-Magnums, and, indeed, resided in the same Nordic regions that the Cro-Magnums did.
              They did come in contact with each other almost on a daily basis, and since the Cro-Magnums were originally hunters and gathers like the Neanderthals were, they were really competitors in the game of survival. The Cro-Magnums, however, had more "brains" than the Neanderthals, and decided to domesticate the animals that were needed for survival. So instead of simply hunting them down and dragging the carcusses to the caves, they build enclosures, "fences" in order to practice animal husbandry, and have a ready supply of food, especially in times of great need.

              Now we know that such a time arrived, it was called the Ice Age, and the C.M's became known as the Icemen, and when the ice flow descended upon the area that the two branches of primitive men inhabited, the Cro-Magnums survived, but the Neanderthals did not. They had become so inured to the area in which they lived that they were incapable of migrating south in order to continue surviving, hunting and gathering. This fault of becoming so well adapted to one area that it is detrimental to change in order to survive has been pointed out by evolutionists as one of the major causes of the extinction of various species.

              As for the Cro-Magnums, whether or no, they cohabited with Neanderthals (and I opine that they probably did on occasion do that) they became the ancestors of the Homo Sapiens, while the Neanderthals became a dead or extinct branch on the tree of evolution.

              E.1: TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK - V.I. Lenin

              Comment


              • #8

                I know that it is accepted science.. but PROVED?? i'm not aware of that... ((and i am not an expert)) but really does not feel believing it to the end.. i have feeling that it is more like the theory of Flogestine (in chemistry)/.. or Plato's theory of universe.. i know that won't help scientifically.. but i am only stating my feelings..

                i feel that evolution did happen.. but may be not really in the picture we have today.. ((or possible that i fell short of understanding what scientist know about evolution))

                thanks for the info.

                Comment


                • #9
                  It's Proved as True, and no longer Theory

                  Originally posted by Voice

                  I know that it is accepted science.. but PROVED?? i'm not aware of that... ((and i am not an expert)) but really does not feel believing it to the end.. i have feeling that it is more like the theory of Flogestine (in chemistry)/.. or Plato's theory of universe.. i know that won't help scientifically.. but i am only stating my feelings..

                  i feel that evolution did happen.. but may be not really in the picture we have today.. ((or possible that i fell short of understanding what scientist know about evolution))

                  thanks for the info.
                  Yes, experts have come to a PUBLIC AGREEMENT that evolution as set forth by Charles Darwin is the TRUTH, or PROVED. They no longer argue the truth versus falseness of Evolution as theory. Instead, they expend their research and discussions on HOW the Evolution takes place.

                  For example, the HOW was significantly illuminated in such findings by paleontologists like Louis Leakey and his team, who discovered the fossilized remains of what Leakey categorized as the missing link between the apemen Homo Erectus and such evolutionary change that led to such as Cro-Magnum man. Leakey called the missing link he discovered Homo Africanensis. She was a female, and some of his staff labeled her as Eve after the original mother of the human race, as recorded in the Bible, but Leakey opted to call her Lucy, and that is that.

                  P.S.: recall the argument over whether the world was flat or oval? Great astrophysicists, since the time of Copernicus and Galileo, PUBLICALLY AGREED that it was oval. But it was not accepted by the hidebound, childish, religionists of those days, (and even of our time too).
                  It was finally proved to ALL MEN when the Earth was photographed from the Lunar spaceship called the Eagle, and we all saw the OVAL form of the planet Earth. Now, the remains of Lucy, the missing link has been found and PROVES to ALL MEN that orthodox or Darwinian Evolution is the TRUTH.
                  E.1: TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK - V.I. Lenin

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yes Evolution happens.. but to what extent? are all creatures from one ancestor.. or from several ancestors! sometimes modern science should be established for years to be accepted/understood by everyday people. for example.. many people would think of Light as constant in speed, and goes in straight lines unaffected by gravity. (which is not what modern science tells).. but for everyday people.. the Newton physics is enough.

                    for me i can imagine human evolving from another ancestor (although against my religious belief).. but how can the special human soul evolved!
                    Human unlike other creatures is capable of Language, writing his own history, civilization forming.. which in my studies have nt find the corrolation with anatomy nor genetic.. our GENES are more than 95% similar to chimpanzee.. but our intellect is far more different!!
                    there are lots of questions.. and i guess a convincing answer will need more than a century to get!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      There will always be Lot of Questions....

                      Originally posted by Voice
                      Yes Evolution happens.. but to what extent? are all creatures from one ancestor.. or from several ancestors! sometimes modern science should be established for years to be accepted/understood by everyday people. for example.. many people would think of Light as constant in speed, and goes in straight lines unaffected by gravity. (which is not what modern science tells).. but for everyday people.. the Newton physics is enough.

                      for me i can imagine human evolving from another ancestor (although against my religious belief).. but how can the special human soul evolved!
                      Human unlike other creatures is capable of Language, writing his own history, civilization forming.. which in my studies have nt find the corrolation with anatomy nor genetic.. our GENES are more than 95% similar to chimpanzee.. but our intellect is far more different!!
                      there are lots of questions.. and i guess a convincing answer will need more than a century to get!
                      Of course, there are lots and lots of questions, and there will always be, because human understanding has limitations, or boundaries beyond which it cannot go without producing lots and lots of contradictions and absurdities. However, if humans stay within themselves, using the faculities of reason and social responsibility, they will be able to make progress towards reaching the very boundaries of what their understanding is capable.

                      Many of the perplexities, such as you mentioned about the speed of light can become more transparent and amenable to solutions, once the human mind understands the importance of defining boundaries and/or frames of references with regard to such perplexities. Systems or systematic thought requires that frames of reference be defined, for example, in Newtonian Physics, the speed of light is a constant and travels in a straight line, but in the framework of reference of Einsteinian Physics, although it accepts the speed of light as constant, it is affected by curvatures of space-time, which allows for gravity to produce, at least, virtual changes in the direction that light travels, so that warping can be measured at least virtually. Hence, the system one uses becomes essential in order for the human understanding to make progress towards more knowledge.

                      It is the same with Evolution. The frame of reference must be defined for human understanding to advance. If the mind stays within the system of evolution, there will be no problems accepting a common ancestor, and the modern deciphering of the human genome, i.e., the genetic code of humans, has already found lots of 'stuff' accompanying the genetic code that suggests ancestral ties to other species, leading back to the 'common ancestor'.

                      Now, if one steps outside the systematic framework and enters the religionist framework of reference, without making significant distinctions between the systems, then the religionist question of the state of the 'soul' and how it was created becomes a problem for human understanding. But if one sticks with the traditional faith and/or beliefs of religionism, then there is no problem for the everyday people who are believers (BTW, most everyday people don't have a clue as to what Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics is all about).
                      E.1: TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK - V.I. Lenin

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Generally i agree with your last comment. the last sentence caught my attention.. beacsue it summurize what i want to tell.. science advance more faster than public awareness.

                        why i am not comfortable with Evoultion as it is..
                        1.a theory had to answer/explain observation
                        2.It has to be verifyable by scientific methods.
                        3.It should predict something, which can be verified.

                        that is what i understand of a theory to be SCIENTIFIC
                        Evoultion got number 1. for number 2 i am not aware of solid proofs..
                        but it has no number (3).. what Evoultion can predict??


                        btw. i found an article of Islamic Evoultionist, who intrepret Quranic in accordance with evolution.
                        I am not convinced with their interpretations.. but for fairness, i am posting this opinion though it is opposing me.

                        http://www.free-minds.org/evolution.htm

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Evolution doesn't need a Brief

                          Originally posted by Voice
                          Generally i agree with your last comment. the last sentence caught my attention.. beacsue it summurize what i want to tell.. science advance more faster than public awareness.

                          why i am not comfortable with Evoultion as it is..
                          1.a theory had to answer/explain observation
                          2.It has to be verifyable by scientific methods.
                          3.It should predict something, which can be verified.

                          that is what i understand of a theory to be SCIENTIFIC
                          Evoultion got number 1. for number 2 i am not aware of solid proofs..
                          but it has no number (3).. what Evoultion can predict??


                          btw. i found an article of Islamic Evoultionist, who intrepret Quranic in accordance with evolution.
                          I am not convinced with their interpretations.. but for fairness, i am posting this opinion though it is opposing me.

                          http://www.free-minds.org/evolution.htm

                          Well, I went and read the article by Ali Arshad. And he is a theorist who speculates upon evolution by using the Qur'an. As you already know, I don't think it is prudent to mix religion with science, although it is acceptable to view such an individual as a theorist, i.e, a hypothesizer or metaphysical speculator. In a way, it reminds me of Copernicus who was a priest in the R.C. church, who was able to hypothesize the heiocentric theory from the mathematical calculations and astrophysical speculations of Johannes Kepler.

                          This, now, brings us a step closer to systematic frameworks of reference, and the importance of knowing the limitations of human reason, in order to advance our knowlege to the very edge of the boundaries of human understanding. Here enters Galileo and, thus, it brings us within that
                          scientific framework, sans metaphysical speculation.

                          Galileo provided the scientific community with the empirical evidence for the heliocentric theory, and, hence, proved it. In other words, from the empirical evidence of his observations (with the telescope he invented), he was able from what he knew by observation, to make a prediction as to the diurnal movement of the planetary system around the Sun.

                          In short, this prediction is linked in a one-to-one correlation, or is a biunique relationship, to explanation. It is a scientific explanation, which is statistically coefficient as an invariant relationship, and, therefore an iron law of scientific knowledge. Herein, to predict is to explain scientifically. It is the matrix of scientific method.

                          In Darwinian Evolution, this scientific method has provided all the proofs required to establish Evolution as the Truth, and not merely an unproved theory.

                          Let me urge you, Voice, to re-read all the works of Charles Darwin and in its light, to see and research the latest results of the human genetic code, and the latest findings of the paleontologists, like Louis Leakey and his team.

                          In that light, you ought to be able to discover that scientific methodology was not abrogated in the least, and, therefore, Evolution requires no Brief whatsoever to convince you or anyone of its veracity.
                          E.1: TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK - V.I. Lenin

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            i read about the theory from american biology book. I got the impression that it all depends on similarities of the creatures, and build assumption over it..

                            can we predict by evolution what will happen to the cats (just example!) in the future?

                            can we explain why only human developed the ability to reason? to think? to write history?.. i think this trait is more advantegous than any other, and should have been spreading widely among animals!

                            Have any experiment should a species evolving into another one?

                            what about chance and probability...

                            Should i read Darwin's work.. or must i go for the last up to date on the theory..

                            btw: Have you come across the Flugestine theory.. it was scientifically accepted theory for burning.. and it lasted for a long time before the OXYGEN came to explain things..

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Do Both....

                              Originally posted by Voice


                              Should i read Darwin's work.. or must i go for the last up to date on the theory..

                              [/B]
                              My recommendation is that you do both.

                              Start with the actual works of Charles Darwin (not biology textbooks about evolution), and then do the updates of the latest research and findings about the human genome and the anthropological discoveries of Louis Leakey and his team.
                              E.1: TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK - V.I. Lenin

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X