Science in Islam

[Jal]

One of the most remarkable things in the Quran is how it deals with science. The Quran which was revealed in the 7th century to Muhammed (p.b.u.h.)_contains unbelievable scientific facts which are being discovered in this century. Scientist are shocked and many times speechless when they are shown how detailed and accurate some verses_ in the Quran are to modern science. Two copies of a Quran exist in a museum in Turkey and Russia. Each one is about 1400 years old. Each copy of the Quran is exactly the same as the ones today. Therefore the Quran is an authentic scripture unlike anything else. While your reading threw this remember that the Quran was revealed more than 1400 years ago, keep in mind the general idea that was common during that time and notice how detailed the verses are.
Soon will we show them our signs in the regions (of the earth), and in their own souls,
until it becomes manifest to them that this is the truth. (41:53) http://www.beconvinced.com/SCIENCEINDEX.htm#SCIENCE%20IN%20THE

[shemp]

What a load of *****!

[Filippo Lippi]

Science? (http://www.beconvinced.com/science/QURANEMBROY.htm)

When comparing the appearance of an embryo at the mugdah stage with a piece of gum that has been chewed, we find similarity between the two.

It's true! There's a picture.

[LW]

Originally posted by Jal

While your reading threw this remember that the Quran was revealed more than 1400 years ago

We live now the year 2003.
Mohammed was born in 570.
He is said to have had his first vision at the age of 40 => year 610.

2003 - 610 = ?

[Upchurch]

Pardon my unfamiliarity with the Quran. As such, I will comment only on the article and assume that the passages taken from the Quran are correct in their translation.

To get right to the point, I find the examples given in the article to be as accurate and specific as any post hoc fitting of any passage (biblical, Nostradomus, etc.) to subsequent events and findings. In other words, I found the article to be the same old "fitting the facts to the theory" we see in most religious and/or pseudo-scientific arguments.

From the article:
THE FUSING AND SEPARATING OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH

Dr. Maurice Bucaille explains it in his book, The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, as follows: "The basic process in the formation of the universe . . . Lay in the condensing of material in the primary nebula followed by its division into fragments that originally constituted galactic masses. The latter in their turn split up into stars that provided the subproduct of the process, i.e. the planets" (p. 149). Does the Qur'an say anything about this condensing and separation of the primary material to result in the formation of our universe? Let's have a look. The creator, Allah, says in his final
book: "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were fused together, then we separated them . . ." (Qur'an 21:30).
Dr. Bucaille sees this as "the reference to a separation process of a primary single mass whose elements were initially fused together" (p.143). Thus the Qur'an gives an accurate account of the formation of the universe to call upon humankind to recognize the power of their creator.I don't know what Dr. Bucaille is a doctor of, but I doubt it's cosmology. I'm not sure what process Dr. Bucaille is attempting to describe but it is not the formation of bodies in the universe. It is true that there is an initial seperation of "primary material" which we call the Big Bang, but everything past that revolves around gravitational collection and condensing of mass, not the seperation of it. The seperation was mostly finished at the beginning and no longer happens except when objects explode.

Besides, and this is true for most of the passages, the passage given is so vague and non-specific that if could be applied to almost anything. I also notice that the passage is incomplete, trailing off to a ". . .", making me wonder what was left off from the passage.
FROM A GASEOUS MASS TO THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH

Concerning the creation of the heavens and the earth, the Qur'an says that prior to the creation, the Heaven was smoke. God then commanded it and the earth to come into being and they came willingly (see surah 41:1 1).

[snip]

Didn't the Qur'an say that the Heaven was smoke before its creation? Dr. Bucaille explains the connection between his description and that of the Qur'an as follows: "Smoke is generally made up of a gaseous substratum, plus, in more or less stable suspension, fine particles that may belong to solid and even liquid states of matter at high or low temperature" (p. 143).
He therefore sees no contradiction of the Quranic use of the Arabic word dukhan (translated smoke) and a modern interpretation of that word as a gaseous mass with fine particles when speaking of the formation of the universe.
Huh. I thought smoke was composed of particulate matter. usually carbon, suspended in a gas as a result of combustion. That's quite a stretch to saying that it's the same thing as rotating clouds of hydrogen and helium gasses. Using this logic, one could also say, "the universe was formed from a fart." Pardon the crudeness, but what's the difference between that and saying the universe was formed from smoke?
AVOIDING THE MISTAKES OF GENESIS

As we saw in chapter 2, both the Quran and modern science confirm that the heavens and the earth were created simultaneously, having been separated from a primary nebula.First of all, What? Modern science does not say that the Earth was created at the same time as the universe? Where did that BS come from?

Further, then comparing one spicific interpretation of the Christian bible with one spicific interpretation of the Quran has absolutely no bearing on the Quran presenting modern scientific knowledge. As such, I see no reason to analyze it.
HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?
This is almost laughable. After condeming the Christian bible for being incorrect on the six days of creation (again, irrelevent), the article goes on to claim "The Quran does not contain any Scientifical mistakes" because the Quran doesn't comment on how old the Earth is! Therefore, in this warped logic, the Quran is correct by default due to admission!
INTERSTELLAR GALACTIC MATERIAL

[snip]

For example, one verse says as follows: [b]"To Him (God) belongs what is in the heavens, on earth, between them and beneath the soil" (Quran 20:6; other verses include 25:59, 32:4 and 50:38). The Quran's claim to having predicted interstellar galactic material? That God owns what is between Earth and Heaven. It doesn't explain or describe what it is, just that God owns it. Obviously, the writter(s) of the Quran were speaking of interstellar galactic material. :rolleyes:
FORMATION OF IRON!

[snip]

And we sent down Iron, in which is Great might, as well as many benefits for mankind (Qur’aan 57-25).
Well, at least it actually mentions the material this time. But I can't help but notice that it doesn't mention how iron was formed, only that it was "sent down", which could mean soooo many things. When Iron was included in the formation of the Earth, there was no "down", so how are we to interpret this?
HOW MANY EARTHS ARE THERE?
Pure speculation that there might be other Earth-like planets out there in the universe. I'm not even sure why this is in the article since it does nothing to further its point.
ORGANIZATION OF THE UNIVERSE
The Quran notes that celestial bodies move in regular patters. That'd be even more impressive if it hadn't already been figured out thousands of years before the Quran was written.

I'm not going to go on. Frankly, it's just more of the same. Vague passage in the Quran stretched and manipulated to fit the facts. Or, worse, the facts stretched and manipulated to fit the Quran. And occasional ad hoc attacks on the Christian Bible. Far from convincing and the same old post hoc religious rationalization that is far from a stranger on this board.

[Trollbane]

From the site
When forty-two nights have passed over the drop (nutfah), Allah sends an angel to it, who shapes it and makes its ears, eyes, skin, flesh and bones. Then he says, "O Lord, is it male or female?" and your Lord decides what he wishes.


I always thought that the gender of the baby is "decided" at conception with the X and Y chromosomes.

[Pahansiri]

Between the 8-9 week the baby's gonads will become either testes or ovaries.
It is then that gender is “determined” but of course there is much ambiguity in many people with huge swings in hormonal 5’s as to testosterone and estrogen. One out of every 2000 live births are in some form hermaphrodite. This many who believe their God “hates” gays or homosexuality is wrong can not be answered as to these people can love as they are neither fully male or female.

“We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed, lump)” (23:12-14)

While all life contains the same elements at one level or % or another at no time is a fetus ever clay while alive, after death and decay it can become part of clay or other forms of soil.

[kedo1981]

Probably wasn’t to hard for Mohammed to have knowledge of what an embryo looked like, as it was not uncommon for him (or others) to go around slicing open pregnant women.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Fillipo Lippi
Science? (http://www.beconvinced.com/science/QURANEMBROY.htm)
Okay, I know next to nothing about the details of embryotic development. That is why I planned to leave this one alone, but come on!
We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah* (leech, suspended thing, blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah** (chewed, lump)” ( QURAN, 23:12-14)
Okay, I can almost buy the leech part, in that there are simularities. However, in the previous article, they described how the Quran does not contain any scientific errors at all and chided the Christian bible for making literal errors (e.g. the world was created in six days). The above passage clearly states that clay is made into a leech which then becomes a chewed lump. That is as scientifically erroneous as it gets. Unless it was not meant to be taken literally, in which case, why where the six "days" in the Christian Genisis to be taken literally? A clear double standard, in my mind. It seems the author of the site wants to have his cake and eat it too.

BTW, that is the most carefully crafted pieces of used gum I've ever seen. When I used to chew gum, I can't ever remember it looking like that.

[thaiboxerken]

I wonder if anyone has informed the scientists of how amazed scientist are of the Quran.

LOL. I've heard this nonsense about science in the Quran all too often. Christians do the same thing with their bible.

[Barkhorn1x]

...Quran mention Teal Redmann???




Now that would be something wouldn't it??




;)

Barkhorn.

[FireGarden]

Jal,
You didn't respond to anybody's arguments in your other thread on the status of Jesus. Don't make me have to admit that Yahzi was ri.. ri..

I can't say it!

Anyway,
I don't have to do any research for this as I did the research when the good people of al-hewar tried to convert me. Here's what I told them in my last post. (At least they were willing to debate. Why don't you have the same attitude?)



Back with embryology, you find that some people try to equate a vague term like "Al-Nutfah" with "zygote"! How do they reach this conclusion? By very tortuous means, in my opinion:

"Al-Nutfah" means "a drop of fluid" (where fluid is taken as "germinal fluid"). Also, in one of the Hadith Mohammad said "Not from all the fluid is the offspring created". From which they conclude that a single sperm is being referred to. Then they say that when you have a mixed group of male and female, you would use male nouns/adjectives (just as in French). So Nutfah could mean a mixture of male and female fluids - in fact a mixture of a small amount of each, and so a mixture of egg and sperm. And from this they reach: "al-Nutfah could mean zygote"!!!

If you allow that much leniency, you'll be hard pressed to find an error in any text. Compare the precision (of language) to that of Galen. Yes, Galen was wrong about the first stage being seminal fluid. Perhaps he was wrong about the liver in the second stage, but he was right about the heart and brain being unshaped but beginning to form. Maybe he was only guessing, but he had beyond doubt committed himself to what he was guessing. Or did he use a word that in Greek could mean "heart", "ghost" or "tube"? I don't speak Greek at all, but as a mathematician I can recognise kappa, alpha, rho, delta, iota, alpha. I can see the word "Kardia" on the seventh line of the Greek version of Galen's text, a picture of which can be seen on this page:
Which is a response to a rebuttal of the earlier page that I linked to on embryology in the Quran. (http://uproar.fortunecity.com/puzzler/312/Responses/Saifullah/embryo.htm)Would you deny that Galen says "heart"?

Compared to Galen, the Quran is so vague that Islamic doctors continued to make the same error as Aristotle. If the Quran is clear and meaningful on the matter, how do you explain, for example, Ali at-Tabari's "Paradise of Wisdom" (850 AD), which says "that the embryo results from mixing of sperm and menstrual blood" (Aristotle thought that menstruation stopped because the blood was being used to make the embryo). Ali at-Tabari might have avoided this mistake if only he had known the true meaning of "al-nutfah".


As for who told Muhammad, some people reckon it may have been al Harith ibn Kalada (Haris bin Kalda) This page includes a biography of ibn Kalada (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/arabic/bioH.html) I haven't been able to find out when exactly he studied at Jundishapur, but Mohammad is said to have referred some patients to him. He's also quoted in Hadith 47. (If that's the same man)


I posted as FireGarden at this page:
The Watchmaker Argument (http://www.al-hewar.com/eng/showthread.php?threadid=367)
(It gets hijacked)

[Fade]

Between the 8-9 week the baby's gonads will become either testes or ovaries.
It is then that gender is “determined” but of course there is much ambiguity in many people with huge swings in hormonal 5’s as to testosterone and estrogen. One out of every 2000 live births are in some form hermaphrodite. This many who believe their God “hates” gays or homosexuality is wrong can not be answered as to these people can love as they are neither fully male or female.

Have to call BS on this.

Where did you get your "one out of every 2000 live births" figure? A quick search on google and ask.com returns sites claiming that the three types of "intersex" people exist. Male-pseudo, Female-pseudo, and True. Most sites also claim that it's rare to a point where only a few thousand known and verified cases exist.

Also, I have never read -anything- linking androgyny to homosexuality. Even if your 1/2000 figure was correct, it wouldn't come close to accounting for all homosexuals that exist (which is closer to 1/20+)

[Pahansiri]

Hello Fade.

No BS my friend, my wording may perhaps have not been as clear as it should.

The rate of live births that have some form of sexual ambiguity is 1 in every 2000 live births. Does this make all these births hermaphrodite no. My wording was not clear there, these cases range from minor to more profound if you will, hermaphrodite.

One does not have to look hard to see people with great swings or ranges as to endocrine system make ups, all humans contain both hormones in differing levels or ratios.

I am not sure I said this was the cause of homosexuality in fact if you read that into I am sorry for my wording. What I was saying is it can be a factor as to 1- endocrine make up and my main point was for a being born with both organs or a full hermaphrodite if you will Say person who was born with genitalia of ambiguity and the DR makes the decision to make this person using surgery a male, the person grows to clearly be more female. Should this person not love or have sexual relations with a male because the DR made a decision that they were male?

That was my point.. You said Also, I have never read -anything- linking androgyny to homosexuality. Even if your 1/2000 figure was correct, it wouldn't come close to accounting for all homosexuals that exist (which is closer to 1/20+)


Again I do not believe I said ALL or gave any % at all as clearly there can be many reasons.

[Yahzi]

Jal (or anyone who is actually reading this thread because Jal isn't)
The Quran which was revealed in the 7th century to Muhammed (p.b.u.h.)_contains unbelievable scientific facts which are being discovered in this century
But that's not science.

Democritus wrote in the 2nd century B.C. that "all that exists are atoms and the void, all else is opinion." He postulated that matter was made up of tiny indivisible units. This idea presaged both atomic physics and even quantam theory. However, it was just a lucky guess: it was not science, because he did not prove it.

Remember in math class, where you had to show your work, or the teacher wouldn't give any points even if the answer was right? That's what science is like. Having the right answer means nothing unless you can show the process of getting the answer (and it has to be the right process!)

Isn't it funny how the religious nuts spend so much time bashing science as a useless, incorrect way of obtaining information (aka evolution), but then turn around at a moment's notice and assert that their holy book is special because it conforms so well with science?

If science disproves the holy book, it is because science is flawed: but if science proves the holy book, then suddenly science is reliable truth.

The only amazing thing here is that these people can say this crap and never even once notice that they are contradicting themselves. That's because the words mean nothing to them: they are simply magic formulas that seem to work when other people use them. This is Cargo Cult behaviour: magic at its purest.

[Pahansiri]

Yahzi yes but The Buddha said it over 500 years BC. There is nothing that is in and of itself self. There is no rainbow just perception of causes and conditions raising and falling.

Remember that atoms are also comprised of non atoms elements. All things are comprised of non “thing” elements.

[Upchurch]

Excellent point #1:Originally posted by Yahzi

Remember in math class, where you had to show your work, or the teacher wouldn't give any points even if the answer was right? That's what science is like. Having the right answer means nothing unless you can show the process of getting the answer (and it has to be the right process!)I'd like to add that if you get the right answer for the wrong reasons, it doesn't count either. One could assert that light travels through space due to the ether, which in many cases gives the correct predictions. Correct predicitons, wrong reasons.

Excellent point #2:Isn't it funny how the religious nuts spend so much time bashing science as a useless, incorrect way of obtaining information (aka evolution), but then turn around at a moment's notice and assert that their holy book is special because it conforms so well with science?I have nothing to add to this. I just think it is very amusing because it is true.

[plindboe]

Jal, the Qur'an is far from perfect. Below is a site that reveal some of the many contradictions, and it is even written by a muslim;

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/

He also addresses the myth many muslims believe, that the book reveal any scientific facts other than what was known at the time it was written.

You'd do yourself a great favor to read that site, instead of just keeping your eyes closed, while spreading propaganda that is blatantly false.

Peter :)

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by plindboe
Jal, the Qur'an is far from perfect. Below is a site that reveal some of the many contradictions, and it is even written by a muslim;

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/

He also addresses the myth many muslims believe, that the book reveal any scientific facts other than what was known at the time it was written.

You'd do yourself a great favor to read that site, instead of just keeping your eyes closed, while spreading propaganda that is blatantly false.

Peter :)

While I agree w/ your contention that the Quran is far from perfect, you use a "BUYBULL" site to point this out. And you know what they say about people in glass houses don't you??

Barkhorn.

[thaiboxerken]

This is all rather silly. Even IF the Quran was accurate about the human reproductive cycle, does it necessarily follow that Allah told Muhammed? I mean, are they trying to claim that Muhammed was so dumb that he couldn't have talked to healer/physicians or seen a birth of an animal, that he couldn't have actually researched such things himself or heard of em? It's not unheard of for a pregnant animal to be slaughtered and a fetus discovered.

It's apparent to me that his "science" is inaccurate and that what is in the Quran is merely a guess at what happens in the body, whether it's based on observation, hearsay or pure conjecture.



I have to wonder if humans were completely ignorant of reproductive cycles in or before that time period.

[FireGarden]

Remember in math class, where you had to show your work, or the teacher wouldn't give any points even if the answer was right? That's what science is like. Having the right answer means nothing unless you can show the process of getting the answer (and it has to be the right process!)
Some of the science in the Koran is observational. Like:

The Sun and moon move in their own orbits, independent of Earthly concerns.
This was used by Mohammed himself when some people claimed that an eclipse occured to mark the death of one of his relatives. It's an observation: Events on Earth are not dictated by nor dictate heavenly motions. Sure, no mention of gravity. No predictive value. Just an observation based on the lack of evidence to support the astrology of the time.

The sun is a lamp and the moon (merely) a light.
The moon doesn't produce its own light - it reflects. (So I suppose he should have used the word "mirror". Did they have mirrors back then?) I can agree that this isn't "science" merely a scientific fact. Because the reason for believing the fact is not given in the Koran. Though I am sure it was known. It's obvious if you see the sun and moon in the sky at the same time, though not all the general public did/do realise it.

The parts about embryology (apparently copied from Galen via Persia) is another good piece of observational science. Like refering to "the thing that clings" for the stage where it can be seen the embryo is anchored by the umbilical cord. An extraordinarily lucky guess if no-one had ever observed it. (And no, kedo1981, they were not cutting up pregnant women. I think that some of Galen's observations were conducted on chicks in eggs. On animals, anyway.) Even Galen gave no reasons and drew no conclusions. It's just observation.

Totally valid as science in my opinion.
So Mohammed is using (by proxy) the correct process. He based what he said on the best science/observations available at the time. And, for the most "accurate" parts, stuck to what people saw rather than what people supposed. EG: he does not mention Aristotle's theory that menstruation stopped because the blood was being used to make the embryo. Does that make him more objective than Aristotle? Well, only 'till you get to the bit about shooting stars...

The point I'm making is:
So what if there's science in the Koran? The people of the time were not totally ignorant, so there are entirely reasonable explanations for the scientific claims (vague as they are at times). It's better than saying that "Mohammed guessed".

I agree with the second point that UpChurch highlighted.
Isn't it funny how the religious nuts spend so much time bashing science as a useless, incorrect way of obtaining information (aka evolution), but then turn around at a moment's notice and assert that their holy book is special because it conforms so well with science?

[FireGarden]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x


While I agree w/ your contention that the Quran is far from perfect, you use a "BUYBULL" site to point this out. And you know what they say about people in glass houses don't you??

Barkhorn.

It's a bible site that annotates its sources very carefully. (I've only read the parts about embryology and Jesus, and those reference the Koran and third party sources well enough)

They do not invent Galen. Or the schools in Persia where some of the doctors of Mecca studied.

(The article I linked to is based on the work of "Dr Lactantius", after a couple of rebuttals and responses. In fact, you can find what looks like the exact same article hosted on
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/embryo.htm

This page is where the discussion begins, I think
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/embryo.html)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x

While I agree w/ your contention that the Quran is far from perfect, you use a "BUYBULL" site to point this out. And you know what they say about people in glass houses don't you??What, two opposing propagandas don't cancel each other out? (what is the plural form of "propaganda" anyway?)

Seriously, what is "BUYBULL"?

[Darwin]

http://www.beconvinced.com/science/QURANCEREBRUM.htm

[Jal]

Regarding the debate i think people in Al hewar Knows more than i do.

To read more about this issue please visit those sites:

http://www.islamland.org/articles1/a006.htm
http://www.islam-guide.com/
http://www.it-is-truth.org/
http://sultan.org/articles/QScience.html
http://www.islamway.com/eng/html/article.php?sid=33
http://islamicity.com/science/

[Filippo Lippi]

Jal, I guess the majority don't care what the authors of the sites you link to think. What is interesting is why you think we should believe it. Surely, even you must question the "evidence" with the piece of gum?

[Filippo Lippi]

Oh-ho! What's this?

"GOD is the ONE who made the sun a shining glory and the moon a light and for her ordained mansions, so that you might know the number of years and the reckoning" (10:5)

The moon is a "light?"

Edited to add the link


Hmmm (http://islamicity.com/Science/960703A.SHTML)

[Upchurch]

Yes, Jal. I think this thread would be better served if you addressed our counter arguments to the first article you posted rather than to try to bury us in new propaganda.

Remember, repitition doesn't make something true. If you wish to show something to be true, address the issue and don't just repeat yourself.

[shemp]

Originally posted by Jal
Regarding the debate i think people in Al hewar Knows more than i do.

To read more about this issue please visit those sites:

http://www.islamland.org/articles1/a006.htm
http://www.islam-guide.com/
http://www.it-is-truth.org/
http://sultan.org/articles/QScience.html
http://www.islamway.com/eng/html/article.php?sid=33
http://islamicity.com/science/

More *****.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by GoodPropaganda


It's a bible site that annotates its sources very carefully.

Well, it's a bible apologist site. That it does annotate its sources carefully is immaterial, as its sources are as blinded by the "truth" of the bible as Jal is by his silly book.

This particular link is to an article that is unintentionally amusing in the lengths that the author's will go to in explaining away some bible whoppers;

http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm

This article ends w/ the following quote;

"...our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him....His letters contain some things that are hard to understand which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:15-16)

I guess the irony of this quote, when combined w/ the author's "interpretation" of the bible, is totally lost on them. The mind boggles.

Edited to add;

I wonder how they miss the hypocrisy in stating that the bible is the inerrant word of God and then taking it upon themselves to interpret the message when contradictions arise. Well, to a rational mind, where there's smoke there's fire. Small errors/inaccuracies/ contradictions, etc. point to a book written for and by men who had a limited understanding of the physical sciences, cosmology and historiography. Inerrant should mean inerrant, especially when we are supposed to be dealing with "god". "Inerrant but…", just doesn't cut it.

Barkhorn.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Seriously, what is "BUYBULL"?

BUYBULL = BUYing into the BULLs**t in the bible.


Barkhorn.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x


BUYBULL = BUYing into the BULLs**t in the bible. Well, I figured. In all caps like that, I assumed it was some sort of classification or perhaps a web portal collection of BS sites.

[FireGarden]

Fillipo Lippi
It depends on the translation. I've seen translations that describe the sun as a lamp and the moon as a mere light. (Or maybe I'm thinking of a different verse)

The fact that the moon doesn't shine of its own accord was known at least as far back as the Greeks. There's nothing supernatural in the idea that Mohammed had access to the knowledge. The Arabs had cart loads of info from the Greeks even at that point in history. So, even with the most favourable interpretation, there is no reason to resort to God as an explanation.

(NB: A version I found (by NJ Dawood) also says "phases" for the moon's "ordained mansions", which makes the time keeping - reckoning - a little clearer. I assume your version is a word-for-word translations, which may "play safe" but lose intended meaning. It's poetry, after all).



Barkhorn1x
That it does annotate its sources carefully is immaterial, as its sources are as blinded by the "truth" of the bible as Jal is by his silly book
Sources like the Koran itself and Galen. Both REALLY blinded by the bible. They even link to rebuttals by Islamic scholars of the original article. (The page I linked to is a response in the sequence)

If you don't like its sources google for your own and find errors. I gave an independent source that confirms Mohammed sent patients to a doctor that studied at a school in Persia where Greek texts were translated. (I can't find third party proof that Galen's text was translated there, but I can accept it is likely)

As for other pages on "answering Islam"
They link to this one http://www.debate.org.uk/topics/theo/islam_christ.html, where my favourite quote (I posted it on Jal's last thread) is:
Again it must be emphasised – this is what the Qur’an portrays as Islamic Christology, not what it asserts is Christian doctrine. It need hardly be stated that these stories are purely mythological, and should not be taken seriously. They may present us with the ’Isa of Muslim faith, but they in no way resemble the Jesus of History; for the latter, we must turn to the canonical gospels.
Now THAT'S risible!
I suppose they're more inclined to be objective when they're attacking something that they don't believe in. But then again, aren't we all?

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by GoodPropaganda



Sources like the Koran itself and Galen. Both REALLY blinded by the bible. They even link to rebuttals by Islamic scholars of the original article. (The page I linked to is a response in the sequence)



...what I should have wrote is that the AUTHORS of the site are blinded, etc. - not the sources. However, my original contention still stands - that the nature of the site is an apolgia for the bible in the sense that bible contradictions can easily be explained while still maintaining that the bible is the inerrant word of a god.

That position is absurd on a number of levels.

Barkhorn.

[Yahzi]

Why is these people never find any interesting answers in their holy books?

"And Lo, God said, the Mass of the Higgs Boson shall be 1.29824 times that of the Mass of the Electron, Blessed Be His Holy Name."

[FireGarden]

Barkhorn
I can agree that the authors of the site have an agenda and are blind to the contradictions in their own holy books.

Anyway,
Until Jal returns, I'm off to worhip HG Wells. He was right about gene-splicing, and he all but mentions DNA in "The Island of Dr. Moreau"


Well, okay, he doesn't even come close.
http://www.online-literature.com/wellshg/doctormoreau/