Jump to content
Islamic Forum
vishah

Congratulating An Atheist

Recommended Posts

Hi Vishah

 

The next point made is somewhat misleading due to factual errors.

 

The ancient Greeks established that the earth was a sphere around the 6th century BCE though it was only a philosophical position till the 3rd century BCE when it was established by observation to be a physical reality.  Dr Niak falsely claims that the quran must be miraculous because some 1000 years after this it correctly restated this position.

 

Given the many references in the quran to the earth as being rolled out like a carpet or stretched out it seems dubious to claim that its author knew this planet’s true shape but I’ll leave that question to those with more knowledge of the original language to argue.

 

Next the claim that the quran miraculously points out that the moon reflects sunlight rather than producing its own light.  The most obvious problem with this claim is that those pesky Greeks again beat Muhammad to the punch by working this one out around the 5th century BCE so even if the quarn got it right, which is again questionable, it did so well over 1000 years after men worked this fact out.

 

Next is the claim that every living thing is “made of water”.  This is actually false though every living thing we are aware of certainly contains water but then it could not be alive if it were in fact “made of water”.  The complex detail of the bodies of all living things simply could not exist if they were made of water because all the work done within them, all the activity which is life is based on carbon and its cohort with water used merely as a medium to achieve many ends within the body.  The fact is that you can’t just point to any one thing and correctly say that living things are made of that.  Life is a very complex interplay of many many interacting elements.

 

So how are Dr Niak’s statistical claims looking so far?  The first two items he relied on were known by men over 1000 years before the quran was written and the last is simply false.  Is that your definition of a miracle?  Anyone?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

^^

Dr Naik does not speak for the entire Muslim ummah.

 

Muslim scholars who choose to avoid mentioning the theories of ancients,whether intentionally or out of ignorance, help creating a crack in their arguments which eventually lead to a hail of refutations that must
be addressed carefully.

 

However, though this is not the place to go through some of what was mentioned in above post- the Qur'an does differ quite a bit from some of the earlier theories and which are more in agreement with modern science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Doc

 

From what I’ve heard Islam is more dispersed than most christian denominations for example.  You don’t seem to have a ‘pope’ equivalent from what I can tell.  That makes Dr Naik one of many commentators with an opinion rather than some sort of divine authority.  That’s much like how atheists are ‘not’ organized.  There is no doctrine of atheism and no pope.  Someone once said that getting a large bunch of atheists to agree on anything is like herding cats.  I suspect that Moslems are more like that than most christian groups though there are some core beliefs that you all must share from what I've been able to gather here.

 

Vishah raised Dr Naik as an example of a good argument for Islam but as we’ve seen his arguments fail.  He’s shown that he does not know history and he does not know atheists.  Given these clear flaws in his arguments maybe we should discount his opinions and look for other people who are better informed to argue in support of your case.

 

I’ve heard many discussions on how the quran aligns more with modern science than earlier works but I’ve seen little evidence of it.  Like most texts it’s possible by selective reading to find passages that appear to support a more modern view, and it is a newer work so a slightly more modern view would be expected, but to say that it aligns with modern science appears to be stretching the truth from what I’ve seen so far.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Russell

 

I agree with your point in the first paragraph and to some extent your second one.

 

Dr Naik does have extensive knowledge in certain fields- especially on the other Abrahamic faiths like Christianity and Judaism which he has addressed in his live t.v. programme. He also is well versed in Hinduism and frequently can be seen debating with scholars from this religion.

 

However- there are some Muslims who over dose on the science side, totally rely on the verses that allude to science be whatever field (biological, astronomical etc). It is not simply of just quoting a verse and then sit back and expect it to have done the job. Muslims who do use the scientific method or wish to get involved in this area need to take necessary approaches.

 

Suffice to say, basis your last paragraph- what we first have to understand is that Muhammad did not have any knowledge or education to even remotely have the ability to make any scientific theories. Anyone who argues he did then needs to bring evidence to prove it. From the seerah of his history- and from the way his life was, he did not have any access to any ancient history, be it Greek or whatever. He was an illiterate Arab which is agreed upon by historians both Muslim and non Muslim.

Edited by The Doc
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IN addition, the main source of knowledge and field of expertise during Muhammad's life was poetry & literature- not science.

 

Hence, what needs to be made clear is that the Quran main challenge lay in the words it spoke out via Muhammad- it was sent to a nation where poetry excelled and people took pride in their usage of words.

 

Anyway- if we go back to the supposed argument Dr Naik makes, what we need to pick out (or what I would say) is that if Muhammad copied or borrowed from Greek works, then why were their views (later found to be errors) not recorded in the Qu'ran?

 

Why, if Muhammad had been the author of the Qu'ran, did it not contain (and does not to this day) the opinions in the field of astronomy or embryology that the likes of Anaxagoras or Galen made (in their specific areas).

Edited by The Doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Doc

 

I don’t know much about Dr Naik, just what I read here so far, but I can’t say it was impressive at face value when he makes false statements in support of his thesis.  If Islam were true would it really require support from falsehoods?

 

From what I’ve seen of many religious including Islam when compared to science the best that can be said is that they don’t contradict it.  On many points religions do clearly contradict science and then you get into apologetic gymnastics.  In the end however science can never disprove the idea of a god.  Science can disprove god ideas that explain some measurable phenomenon by measuring it and showing that the claims were wrong but many gods are framed such that they don’t make such claims and there is always room for someone to invent a new concept of god that is completely outside of science.  Science will never know everything so there will always be room for god.  That said what really interests me is what we can know.  Can we find some real evidence for a god?

 

You talked about verses that allude to science and I’ve heard before that the quran is not a book of science but to me the real interest is the areas of any such books which are open to evidence and to science.  They may only be little bits of these books but they are the areas we can really dig into and find good evidence for or against and that’s interesting.

 

I understand your claim that in the end, even though men knew that the earth was spherical, the moon reflected light etc long before Muhammad that he may not have been aware of this information.  I’d suggest that it is the muslim who is making the extraordinary claim here, claiming that divine intervention gave Muhammad this knowledge rather than bumping into someone who already knew it and it must always fall to the person making the extraordinary claim to provide the evidence.  I may tell you there’s a teapot orbiting pluto but I can’t then demand that you prove it’s not so, I have to prove it is.  Likewise for the muslim in this case.  You claim that, even though this knowledge existed long before Muhammad that he could not have come across it other than from god, that is an extraordinary claim and so demands proof before any rational person should accept it.

 

The greeks were amazing scientists for their day, they got some things very wrong but given the evidence they had at hand they got some things very very right.  They were amazing.  Not all greeks would have accepted all of these theories, some would accept that the moon reflected light from the sun and that the earth was spherical but did not accept other ideas, is it hard to believe that some people might have accepted these truths and rejected the falsehoods.  It’s a simple enough answer to suggest that Muhammad came across someone who accepted these truths and that he thought they were worthy of passing on while they did not accept the falsehoods or simply ran out of time to tell him about these other ideas.  No hugly improbably super beings in the sky needed just people who do or do not accept a given idea 1000 years after it was first discovered or two people having a chat but with limited time.  That sort of selective acceptance is common enough today so there’s no reason to suspect that it was not common back then and running out of time has always been a human problem.

 

Of course all of that supposes that the quran does in fact get these facts correct and from what I’ve been presented with so far that seems questionable, while some passages can be interpreted to correctly portray the earth etc many others appear to contradict this view.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think everything needs to be looked at in its context.

 

It is a challenge for someone to prove where the source of knowledge Muhammad has came from- the challenge is from the Qu'ran itself and stands on its own to this day.

There are rhetorical questions posed by the Qu'ran and rightly so- as it would be absurd for someone human to suggest that such and such work/book etc is faultless.

It also asks the doubters to disprove it, asking did he (Muhammad) forge it?

 

I don't want to drag this in to a lengthy post but basically non Muslims need to prove otherwise- if they feel there are strong evidences to say Muhammad was author of the Qu'ran or he could have known XYZ from such and such.

 

Have you read a good biography of Muhammad written by Muslims for both non and Muslim audiences? I suggest you pick one up and then it will help you make some more educated decisions.

 

The last sentence you make is really to do with the diverse language which Arabic is. How it describes words and how it separates meanings is one of the beauties of the Qu'ran and its strength in proving doubters wrong.

 

If we go back to the moonlight/reflected light, we first have to acknowledge that Anaxagoras did have errors in his argument as he claimed that the sun is a rock-while in modern astronomy we all know that stars are just forms of huge gaseous balls. Why, if Quran was copied, did it choose to reveal the correct scientific facts and avoid the errors? This is what I was alluding to in my last post.

 

Also, from the verses that refer to light (i.e. coming from sun and moon) - these include 10:5/71:16/25:61 and 78:13 it uses different terms to describe moonlight and sunlight, the former referred to as 'nur' and latter as 'diya'a' or 'siraj'. . However, the Quran never uses both terms interchangeably. Here we should ponder: if both lights were identical in nature, why were different Arabic terms used to describe each light source?

In addition, why is it that only the sun, and not the moon, is described as a 'siraj', or a lamp?

 

Anyone with a basic astronomical interest knows that there are two types of light sources: direct sources like the sun and lamps, and indirect sources, like the moon and planets, which derive their light from other sources.

 

In more than one verse,  the Qu'ran described the sun as a lamp, because both the sun and the lamp share the property of being direct sources of light. Arabic language is therefore more exact in using two different terms, 'nur' and 'diya'a' , that although have the same meaning in other languages, are actually different in terms of what source of light they refer to . The Quran also describes the sun as 'siraj wahhaj', meaning a glowing or flaming lamp, to show how the sun is luminous and burning with flame. Again, this concurs with the scientific description of the sun as a high energy producer.

 

So, again, when we consider that Muhammad was an illiterate arab from the dessert and where science was not the field of knowledge- we as Muslims can conclude that the source of his knowledge (and this part on the sun and moon is just a small section) was divine.

Edited by The Doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Doc

 

I disagree that it is up to the non-believer to prove that Muhammad got this old knowledge from any specific source.  The knowledge predates Muhammad by around 1000 years so it was there for him to learn.  If you claim that he did not then you have to prove that throughout his entire life he never spoke to anyone who may have already known this.  Can you prove that you know every single person he ever spoke and what exactly they said to each other for his entire life?

 

I have never read a biography of Muhammad but I’ve heard bits and pieces about his life on this and other forums.  If you have any specific pieces of information that you believe talk to this question then please present it here.

 

Many of the Greeks, including Anaxagoras, got things wrong.  They coined the term atom and we apply it today to a component of our world that may in some superficial ways resemble their ideas but in some very fundamental ways looks nothing like what the Greeks imagined.  That does not mean that they weren’t amazingly clever to work these things out.  The sun is in fact a ball of gas plasma not a rock but given that he got some factors wrong in his reasoning he also got a surprizing amount right given the limited information he had to work with.

 

As for why the quran focused on the important fact, that the moon reflected light rather than created it and that the earth was a sphere while ignoring more mundane parts such as the constituents of the sun seems pretty obvious.  What the sun is made of is not as important as the fact that it supplies the light that we see reflected in the moon.  That fact is far more interesting and telling in understanding how our universe works than understanding what the sun is made of IMHO.  Not that understanding what the sun is made of is not also a very interesting fact but it’s a lesser one than how the sun/moon/earth system interacts.  What is the ancient Arabic word for gravity driven, fusion powered gas plasma by the way?

 

I can’t say I know the Arabic terms you are referring to so I can’t help you there but we too use different terms for direct and reflected lights so that the Arabs did the same does not seem surprizing to me.  To call the sun a fiery ball compared to the moon seems intuitively obvious to me.  Walk outside on a sunny day and feel the fire then walk outside on a full moon evening and feel what, cold/pale/distant light.  The two seem so vastly different that to use the same word for them would seem strange in the extreme even if you had no knowledge what so ever of their constituents.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need to prove anything- I gave my sources and also asked if you had read a biography of Muhammad- you have confirmed that you have not.

 

Hence my evidence is that there is no historical account of Muhammad having met or studied with anyone with this sort of ancient history- you need to then do the research to disprove the point.

 

Even the knowledge of embryology (which is in much more depth in the Qu'ran and even more explicitly shows errors made by Greeks)- Roy Porter, a social historian of medicine, raises the contention if whether a medical school actually existed there. Porter in his book, The Greatest Benefit to Mankind: A Medical History of Humanity, writes:


 

 

“Jundishapur was certainly a meeting place for Arab, Greek, Syriac
and Jewish intellectuals, but there is no evidence that any medical
academy existed there. Only in the early ninth century did Arab–Islamic
learned medicine take shape.”

 

It is also interesting to note,  that from the 5th to the 7th century, Jundishapur does not seem to have any other students that can be authenticated historically. SO again- where did an illiterate man like Muhammad get his knowledge- YOU have to prove he learnt from some medic or other Greek works in whatever field.

 

Until then- I don't need to run this course as I have come across similar stances before and they just repeat and repeat the same thing, anyone can make assumption after assumption- but I have given sources to discredit any argument of Greek influence around the time of Muhammad.

 

Hence why I have asked if you read a biography of Muhammad- you need to understand his character, his position amongst the Arabs before he started to convey his message etc. That in itself will give you an insight as to how his life was before, during and after the revelations had stopped.

 

Peace,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Doc

 

No you don’t need to prove anything at least not unless you want rational people to accept what you say, then maybe you would like to consider it.  Reading a biography of Muhammad does not prove much.  Biographies give you an overview of a person’s life, they can’t ever get all the detail.  His biography may not say that he spoke to someone once who knew of this old knowledge but that doesn’t tell us much other than that his biographers didn’t know of that conversation if it occurred or didn’t think it was worth writing down if they did.  I understand that he was an ‘ignorant and illiterate arab’, a man of his time so to speak so he may not have known about the shape of the earth etc, I accept that but your claim goes far beyond that, it reaches into the realm of the extraordinary.  You claim that a god gave him this information even though it existed among humans long before that time.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof by definition and that is exactly what I have asked for.  In all probability, if he met with someone who did have this knowledge that fact was never recorded and so we will simply never know.  To base your beliefs on ignorance is foolish in my humble opinion.  To say we have no record of him talking with someone with this knowledge when we would have no way of knowing many of the conversations he had in his life so we must believe that god did it is wishful thinking at best.

 

I’ve read a bit on the quranic embryology and found it lacking.  The stages are wrong the source of genetic material is wrong as are many other details.  ‘Clever’ interpretation may stretch it to the point where you see modern embryology in it but that is a backwards view driving by modern knowledge applied to the source material.  Any ignorant person who viewed the quran only as their source would come away completely ignorant of how embryology worked.

 

Yes we probably will go around and around if this is the best argument you can come up with.  Absence of evidence is not evidence for absence it simply means we don’t know.  To blow ‘we don’t know’ into ‘god must have done it’ has always been a foolish position I my humble opinion.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rusell i have a question for you let see how will you answer it

 

if you dont believe that quran is from God and you believe that it is from humans, then explain who could put letters NTRN (consonants for word Neutron) in this formation only in verse 18:39 out of 6236 verses in the whole quran,  what is so special with 18:39, science tells us today that Neutron is 1,839 times heavier than an electron. Who could measure neutron, proton and electron in 6th century and program this information in the Quran? who had such techonology to measure a particle wioch was not discovered until year 1932 by James Chadwick and was named by him. so WHo could measure particle and know how it will be called in the future so he put such information in the book.

 

This is double miracle, to know how the particle will be named in the future and know the ratio between this particle and electron.

 

 

http://www.ehow.co.uk/info_7777671_atom-electron-neutron-proton.html

Neutron
Located in the nucleus of atoms, neutrons have mass slightly lower than those of protons. This indivisible particle gets its name for the fact that it has no electrical charge. It is 1,839 times the size in mass of an electron.
 

if you say this is coincidence, then explain then how could we see letters PRTN(consonants for Proton)  in verse 18:37 , and we know today that Proton is 1,837 times heavier than an electron.

 

evidence

http://www.algebra.com/algebra/homework/Polynomials-and-rational-expressions.faq.question.166017.html

"We can say that the proton is 1837 times heavier than the electron"

 

http://www.ehow.co.uk/info_7777671_atom-electron-neutron-proton.html

Proton
Elements get their atomic number based on the number of protons found in each atom. This indivisible particle in the nucleus of an atom carries a positive charge, referred to as "1" on the atomic weight scale. A proton has a mass 1,837 times greater than that of an electron.



 

Edited by andalusi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

I’ve read the verse in translation and it does not refer to this topic in the slightest.  If I were a god and wanted to insert a miracle into a text I’d say something directly, I’d tell the people that I was talking about physics and tell them what would one day be discovered.  This hiding away cryptic, post hock, information would not do.  Now I’m not a scholar of the quran, I’m letting you guy’s teach me as we go along, but I’ve looked deeply into quite a few ‘numerical miracle’ and ‘word miracle’ stories in the past related to the bible and I suspect that the same findings would apply here.  A number of authors have noted that you can find passages that refer to historical events in detail by applying specific search methods to the bible.  Sure enough you do find some very telling sentences in there with this method, it does indeed look miraculous but then the clincher, the same method was applied to “Moby Di-ck” and the same results were obtained.  The method produced the results not the source material.

 

Now you have pulled some letters which are, apparently, the Arabic translation of our modern words and said that you only find them at a very specific numerical passage in the quran.  It does, on the face of it, sound pretty amazing but you have chosen some very specific methods to find that coincidence, a method that likely was not imagined by those who wrote the book and a process that is likely to produce similar results when applied to any number of texts.  You’ve chosen a specific example, the proton and neutron, and found something significant but if you broaden your search to include more and more terms you are bound to find more and more coincidences just by chance alone.  The real question is, does the quran contain more of these than you would expect by chance alone because we know that such coincidence are produced all the time by chance?  Can you prove that this is miraculous and not just confirmation bias applied to the book as so many have done before with so many holy books?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

I’ve read the verse in translation and it does not refer to this topic in the slightest.  If I were a god and wanted to insert a miracle into a text I’d say something directly, I’d tell the people that I was talking about physics and tell them what would one day be discovered.  This hiding away cryptic, post hock, information would not do.  Now I’m not a scholar of the quran, I’m letting you guy’s teach me as we go along, but I’ve looked deeply into quite a few ‘numerical miracle’ and ‘word miracle’ stories in the past related to the bible and I suspect that the same findings would apply here.  A number of authors have noted that you can find passages that refer to historical events in detail by applying specific search methods to the bible.  Sure enough you do find some very telling sentences in there with this method, it does indeed look miraculous but then the clincher, the same method was applied to “Moby Di-ck” and the same results were obtained.  The method produced the results not the source material.

 

Now you have pulled some letters which are, apparently, the Arabic translation of our modern words and said that you only find them at a very specific numerical passage in the quran.  It does, on the face of it, sound pretty amazing but you have chosen some very specific methods to find that coincidence, a method that likely was not imagined by those who wrote the book and a process that is likely to produce similar results when applied to any number of texts.  You’ve chosen a specific example, the proton and neutron, and found something significant but if you broaden your search to include more and more terms you are bound to find more and more coincidences just by chance alone.  The real question is, does the quran contain more of these than you would expect by chance alone because we know that such coincidence are produced all the time by chance?  Can you prove that this is miraculous and not just confirmation bias applied to the book as so many have done before with so many holy books?

 

Russell

 

 

 

I’ve read the verse in translation and it does not refer to this topic in the slightest.

 

you cant find it in the translation , you can find it in orginal text of the Quran in arabic

 

 

2zex9gk.jpg

 

qsmqma.jpg

28k7jaq.jpg

 

 

 

 If I were a god and wanted to insert a miracle into a text I’d say something directly, I’d tell the people that I was talking about physics and tell them what would one day be discovered. 

 

it would not be good if God told directly beacuse God used allready known word during that time, and everybody knew that word. 

 

IN TRN = 2 words means "If you see" in arabic and we can cleary see that consonants NTRN in perfect order, if it was NRTN it would not be neutron anymore.

 

 

 

 but I’ve looked deeply into quite a few ‘numerical miracle’ and ‘word miracle’ stories in the past related to the bible and I suspect that the same findings would apply here.  A number of authors have noted that you can find passages that refer to historical events in detail by applying specific search methods to the bible.  Sure enough you do find some very telling sentences in there with this method, it does indeed look miraculous but then the clincher, the same method was applied to “Moby Di-ck” and the same results were obtained.  The method produced the results not the source material.

 

there is no nummerical miracles in bible nor moby , trust me, Quran can provide you real nummerical miracles and neutron and proton are not only nummerical miracles in the quran there is hundreds of them.

 

 

 a method that likely was not imagined by those who wrote the book

 

quran was not created by men,

 

 

 

Can you prove that this is miraculous and not just confirmation bias applied to the book as so many have done before with so many holy books?

 

i can do it very easy

 

can you imagine 6236 verses in the quran and word neutron (NTRN) can be found in that formation only in verse 18:39 and you know that neutron is 1,839 heavier than an electron. what is the chance that you put correct position out of 6236 if it was by chance? it is almost zero chance.

Edited by andalusi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

Yes I understood that the word would not be found in the translation, that was not the point, the passage in which you found this word spanning two other words was referring to another topic entirely.

 

No I can’t see an argument against a god speaking plainly here.  He would have to explain that the information he was giving would not be understood for many years but in speaking plainly he would lose the ambiguity.  Speaking plainly would rule out the complaint that I have raised, that this sort of finding could be simple coincidence because the same sorts of methods find the same sorts of ‘miracles’ in virtually any text they are applied to.

 

I agree that there are no numerical miracles in the bible or in moby but I think we will disagree that there are some found in the quran because the same methods that produced those ‘miracles’ in the bible and moby would almost certainly produce similar miracles if applied to the quran and your methods would most likely produce similar miracles if applied to these books.

 

 

quran was not created by men,

That is really the point of contention here isn’t it.

 

Your proof is precisely what I was talking about, you have proven that this ‘miracle’ is improbable, not as improbable as winning the lotto most likely but improbable none the less.  Now apply the same methods to every word you can think of that might appear ‘miraculous’ and repeat your test on the quran.  How many more would provide these ‘miracles’ and, more telling, how many would fail to produce ‘miracles’?  Apply the same methods to any other text you can think of.  How many more ‘miracles’ will you find?

 

Someone once pointed out that million to one odds are pretty long, I wouldn’t want to bet my future on such odds, but on a planet that contains billions of people million to one odds must come true thousands of times per day by chance alone.  Apply really long odds to enough cases and many will come true by chance alone.

 

Your thesis is that a god gave this book to man and purposefully embedded these ‘miracles’ in there.  That claim contains the hidden baggage of a god.  God is a huge and unproven assumption in your claim making long odds, even very long odds, the far more plausible answer unless you already accept the god.  Lets face it, any book is statistically very improbable, how many words in how many different orders could have existed yet ‘this’ book or ‘that’ book was written, that’s not just true of the quran.  Your challenge is to prove that the statistical improbability of the quran is sufficient to support the staggeringly high statistical improbability of a god.  None of the figures you have raised so far come close I’d have to suggest thought they are interesting.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

Yes I understood that the word would not be found in the translation, that was not the point, the passage in which you found this word spanning two other words was referring to another topic entirely.

 

No I can’t see an argument against a god speaking plainly here.  He would have to explain that the information he was giving would not be understood for many years but in speaking plainly he would lose the ambiguity.  Speaking plainly would rule out the complaint that I have raised, that this sort of finding could be simple coincidence because the same sorts of methods find the same sorts of ‘miracles’ in virtually any text they are applied to.

 

I agree that there are no numerical miracles in the bible or in moby but I think we will disagree that there are some found in the quran because the same methods that produced those ‘miracles’ in the bible and moby would almost certainly produce similar miracles if applied to the quran and your methods would most likely produce similar miracles if applied to these books.

 

 

That is really the point of contention here isn’t it.

 

Your proof is precisely what I was talking about, you have proven that this ‘miracle’ is improbable, not as improbable as winning the lotto most likely but improbable none the less.  Now apply the same methods to every word you can think of that might appear ‘miraculous’ and repeat your test on the quran.  How many more would provide these ‘miracles’ and, more telling, how many would fail to produce ‘miracles’?  Apply the same methods to any other text you can think of.  How many more ‘miracles’ will you find?

 

Someone once pointed out that million to one odds are pretty long, I wouldn’t want to bet my future on such odds, but on a planet that contains billions of people million to one odds must come true thousands of times per day by chance alone.  Apply really long odds to enough cases and many will come true by chance alone.

 

Your thesis is that a god gave this book to man and purposefully embedded these ‘miracles’ in there.  That claim contains the hidden baggage of a god.  God is a huge and unproven assumption in your claim making long odds, even very long odds, the far more plausible answer unless you already accept the god.  Lets face it, any book is statistically very improbable, how many words in how many different orders could have existed yet ‘this’ book or ‘that’ book was written, that’s not just true of the quran.  Your challenge is to prove that the statistical improbability of the quran is sufficient to support the staggeringly high statistical improbability of a god.  None of the figures you have raised so far come close I’d have to suggest thought they are interesting.

 

Russell

 

 

the passage in which you found this word spanning two other words was referring to another topic entirely.

 

that is the wisdom of God and amazing transfer of double information, to put these words "If you see"="iN TRN" making consonants NTRN from a word neutron and put it in only one verse out of 6236 on correct position.

 

if God only use consonants then it can fit almost in every word for Neutron in other languages in future, some call it NÖTRON, some call it NATRON and so on.

 

But if God used NEUTRON with vocals E,U,O no arab would understand that would nor muslims until 1932 when NEUTRON was discovered and named. it would not be wise probabaly beacuse many generations before Neutron was discovered would read the word neutron and would not understand it so place in the quran would be wasted for many generations. Now God make word neutron by putting two words with consonants NTRN next to each other and wich forms word neutron. i think this is totally amazing of giving double information, everybody understood during that time these two words "iN TRN"="If you see" but nobody could see word neutron in it beacuse neutron was not yet discovered so how could the see it.

 

do you know that God promised that he will show his signs everywhere in future in universe and in our selves and in nature on earth.

 

 

He would have to explain that the information he was giving would not be understood for many years but in speaking plainly he would lose the ambiguity. 

 

 

he has allready informed us about that

 

God says in the Quran:

 

3:7 It is He(God) who has sent this Scripture down to you [Prophet Muhammed]. Some of its verses are clear in meaning- these are the cornerstone of the Scripture- and others are ambiguous....But none know its interpretation except God and those who are well founded in knowledge, they Say: "We believe in it, all is from our Lord." And none will remember except the people of understanding.

 

 

 

 

 I think we will disagree that there are some found in the quran because the same methods that produced those ‘miracles’ in the bible and moby would almost certainly produce similar miracles if applied to the quran and your methods would most likely produce similar miracles if applied to these books.

 

if so then show me, show us evidence that such information is also in bible or moby .

 

 

 

Now apply the same methods to every word you can think of that might appear ‘miraculous’ and repeat your test on the quran.  How many more would provide these ‘miracles’ and, more telling, how many would fail to produce ‘miracles’?  Apply the same methods to any other text you can think of.  How many more ‘miracles’ will you find?

 

there is no such miracles in other books except in Quran, people would already present it if they had found it, but none has yet done it.

 

 

 

 might appear ‘miraculous’ and repeat your test on the quran

 

 

ok here is another example

 

 

w9z2hs.jpg

 

o056j7.jpg

ejubu9.jpg

 

 

God said in the Quran:

 

21:37 Man was created hasty: I will show you My signs soon, so do not ask Me to hasten them. 

41:53 We shall show them Our signs in the horizons(universe) and in themselves, until it becomes clear to them that this(Quran) is the Truth. Is it not enough that your Lord witnesses everything?

 

 

 

 

Your thesis is that a god gave this book to man and purposefully embedded these ‘miracles’ in there.  That claim contains the hidden baggage of a god.  God is a huge and unproven assumption in your claim making long odds, even very long odds, the far more plausible answer unless you already accept the god.  Lets face it, any book is statistically very improbable, how many words in how many different orders could have existed yet ‘this’ book or ‘that’ book was written, that’s not just true of the quran.  Your challenge is to prove that the statistical improbability of the quran is sufficient to support the staggeringly high statistical improbability of a god.  None of the figures you have raised so far come close I’d have to suggest thought they are interesting.

 

what is the chance that someone put only word neutron (NTRN) in correct position out of 6236 verses

 

the chance is 0,00016% = 1/6236 in other words the chance is 0, what is the chance that you put NTRN instead of other combinations NRTN, or NNRT or RNTN then chance is even smaller if you take this also in count.

 

 

Your challenge is to prove that the statistical improbability of the quran is sufficient to support the staggeringly high statistical improbability of a god.  None of the figures you have raised so far come close I’d have to suggest thought they are interesting.

 

here, i will give you example why Quran is nummerically programmed, do you know that words reapeat troughout the quran with similar meaning or opposite meaning

 

for example Angels wwere menationed 88 times, Devils are also mentioned 88 times, This world is mentioned 115 times- Next word is mentioned also 115 times, Man 24 times- Woman 24 times

or Wine 6 times- Drunkness also 6 times and so on and on.

 

this is basic programing of the quran,if we study closely quran we see many nummerical miracles in it and neutron, proton, DNA;RNA and so on.

 

Do you know that Quran mentions consonants for word Television , (TLVSN ) these letters can be found only next to each other in perfect order in only chapter wich talk about image transmission or teleportation in a second in between 2000 km

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Doc

 

No you don’t need to prove anything at least not unless you want rational people to accept what you say, then maybe you would like to consider it.  Reading a biography of Muhammad does not prove much.  Biographies give you an overview of a person’s life, they can’t ever get all the detail.  His biography may not say that he spoke to someone once who knew of this old knowledge but that doesn’t tell us much other than that his biographers didn’t know of that conversation if it occurred or didn’t think it was worth writing down if they did.  I understand that he was an ‘ignorant and illiterate arab’, a man of his time so to speak so he may not have known about the shape of the earth etc, I accept that but your claim goes far beyond that, it reaches into the realm of the extraordinary.  You claim that a god gave him this information even though it existed among humans long before that time.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof by definition and that is exactly what I have asked for.  In all probability, if he met with someone who did have this knowledge that fact was never recorded and so we will simply never know.  To base your beliefs on ignorance is foolish in my humble opinion.  To say we have no record of him talking with someone with this knowledge when we would have no way of knowing many of the conversations he had in his life so we must believe that god did it is wishful thinking at best.

 

I’ve read a bit on the quranic embryology and found it lacking.  The stages are wrong the source of genetic material is wrong as are many other details.  ‘Clever’ interpretation may stretch it to the point where you see modern embryology in it but that is a backwards view driving by modern knowledge applied to the source material.  Any ignorant person who viewed the quran only as their source would come away completely ignorant of how embryology worked.

 

Yes we probably will go around and around if this is the best argument you can come up with.  Absence of evidence is not evidence for absence it simply means we don’t know.  To blow ‘we don’t know’ into ‘god must have done it’ has always been a foolish position I my humble opinion.

 

Russell

Russell

 

I don't think you have really comprehended much of what I have tried to convey.

 

Needless to say, using embryology was only an example as it was already alluded to earlier in this thread. However I can add that someone may ask just why does the Qu'ran contain embryological information?

Let us be clear that the object of the Qur’an is to give spiritual guidance to mankind,and imparting scientific information obviously doesn’t serve that purpose. So why is that information there in the Qur’an to begin with? And how can we benefit from such information?

 

One of the most common approaches of the Qur’an is to appeal to the Creation. Qur’an frequently appeals to the creation to make people contemplate on the beauty and intricate designs involved in the creation, and thus realize the existence of the omnipotent and merciful mastermind behind all this, and how man should be grateful for the gifts of God.

 

(For sake of space saving I won't inundate you with the various verses relating to this and I am sure you can research yourself or already have done- assuming you have a copy of the Qu'ran)

 

So under this sentiment, the Qur’an also mentions the process of human creation, and how he was assembled in the womb. But in the process of mentioning these things, embryonic information has been inevitably brought up. So the purpose of the Qur’an is not to take an embryology class. Rather its purpose is spiritual, but in imparting spiritual lessons, “in the course of conversation” so to speak, embryonic information inescapably comes up.

 

Some people assume that the Qur’an’s purpose in mentioning these facts is to educate people about science (which is inaccurate,) and based on that they end up with unanswered questions and consequent confusions. Why is it, people may ask, that the Qur’an doesn’t give an orderly, scientific account of the embryological stages, but instead scatter the verses throughout the book, with considerable repetitions? Why is it, that the Qur’an only mentions some stages of

embryonic development, and leave out other, significant ones? Why is it that the Qur’anic description of embryology is lacking in detail? All of these questions are answered once we take into account the Qur’anic sentiment behind mentioning these facts. The Qur’an mentions embryonic facts only to the extent of serving its purposes, and does not go anywhere beyond that. This is why the entire detailed process of human embryonic development is not mentioned. Hence it is very important to keep the purpose in mind.

 

A related question to ask now is: how can we benefit from this information?

 

When placed in context of the Qur’anic verses, such information imparts spiritual lessons as mentioned above, thus benefit can be obtained from them.

 

However, another significant point of benefit regarding the purpose of the existence of embryological information in the Qur’an has been suggested, which is essentially based on the following verse:

We will show them Our Signs in the universe, and in their own selves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Quran) is the truth. Is it not sufficient in regard to your Lord that He is a Witness over

all things?[surah Fussilat, 41:53]

 

Some scholars say, based on this verse, that one of the reasons why Qur’an mentions embryological information (or any other scientific information for that matter) is to give evidence for its veracity as Divine revelation.

 

So this brings me back to the main point, which was the Qur’an, in talking about embryology, has imparted substantial amount of information which was impossible to have been discovered during the time of its revelation i.e. seventh century C.E, due to lack of technological advancements. With the recent widening of human knowledge however, especially after the discovery of microscopes, we have been in a position to judge the truth of Qur’anic embryology. All of the facts the Qur’an mentions are now proven to be true. So therefore, this is a living proof of the fact that the Qur’an could not have been human creation. Rather the only logical conclusion we can arrive at in regards to the Qur’an is that it is Divine revelation.

 

It is all fine and dandy if one wishes to contest that the Qu'ran is inaccurate on this subject BUT then has to bring proof! Show it scientifically that the embryological information contained in the Qu'ran is wrong.

 

I pray that this extended (sorry for that) post aids your understanding as to how an intellectual Muslim will see the Qu'ranic purpose and able to use the guidelines to better understand their religion, their creator and the Messenger.

 

Peace

Edited by The Doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 So this brings me back to the main point, which was the Qur’an, in talking about embryology, has imparted substantial amount of information which was impossible to have been discovered during the time of its revelation i.e. seventh century C.E, due to lack of technological advancements.

 

Sorry to have to tell you this, but neither the Koran, nor the sunnah nor any religious text mentions embryology.

 

Embryology is a scientifically accurate description of what happens in nature.

In Islam you get creation, not nature. In Islam a god/creator is the cause for life and the existence of humans, not nature. You mention this yourself in the last sentence.

 

In Islam woman is created from man, in nature it is the other way around.

In Islam Earth is created and then the creator/god turned to the heavens, the Universe. In nature, it is the other way around.

In Islam mountains are set on the earth with pegs as stabilisers which stop the ground from shaking. In nature they grow out of the crust and cause earthquakes.

 

You can't make the religious texts in Islam look as though they are scientifically accurate. They are not. They are spiritual texts, not scientific textbooks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to have to tell you this, but neither the Koran, nor the sunnah nor any religious text mentions embryology.

 

Embryology is a scientifically accurate description of what happens in nature.

In Islam you get creation, not nature. In Islam a god/creator is the cause for life and the existence of humans, not nature. You mention this yourself in the last sentence.

 

In Islam woman is created from man, in nature it is the other way around.

In Islam Earth is created and then the creator/god turned to the heavens, the Universe. In nature, it is the other way around.

In Islam mountains are set on the earth with pegs as stabilisers which stop the ground from shaking. In nature they grow out of the crust and cause earthquakes.

 

You can't make the religious texts in Islam look as though they are scientifically accurate. They are not. They are spiritual texts, not scientific textbooks.

 

 

are you so sure then look this

 

Embryology In The Quran, Scientific miracle in the Quran,Leech 

 

Edited by andalusi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

Yes I understood your view on the ‘double meaning’, that god hid away this information in a passage talking about something else entirely.  My point was that it would be more amazing if the passage had directly discussed future knowledge rather than it having to be ‘found’ by methods such as you are applying.  I’m not aware of anyone doing similar research on other books so I can’t show you what such methods would produce I can only give you the example of the bible code methods applied to other texts.  These methods named and dated the death of American presidents and many other ‘famous’ events in history and all from a book that is a translation of the original.  They claimed that finding this hidden information in the text proves that god has inspired the bible through the translation process so even the English books we read today are still his inspired word.  As I said when the same methods are applied to other text the same sort of ‘miraculous sentences’ appear. I see no reason to suspect that you would not find many similar coincidences if you put the same amount of effort into looking for them in other texts but I’m not aware of anyone putting in the time and effort that that would require.

 

Of course 3:7 could also be a handy doge for any pieces of information that doesn’t appear to make sense, you just tell the questioner that it will make sense one day because god said so.  If there is no god this is a very handy inclusion wouldn’t you agree?

 

You say there are no such ‘miracles’ in other books but I’ve already explained that many similarly amazing ‘miracle’ passages have been found in the bible and in Moby so I’m not sure what else I can say on that one.  They may have used a different method but it was none the less a method that will display hidden information in the text, information that the original authors could never have hidden there which is a ‘miraculous’ thing to find in there.

 

Gregor Mendel formulated his thesis between 1863 and 1864 most likely and first presented it in 1865 then published it in 1866.  Plenty of years you could have picked there so that makes it easier to find coincidences but wait, Mendel was completely unaware of DNA his work was amazing and it was on inheritance and the digital nature of inheritance but DNA would not be discovered till long after his death.  I’m sure he would have been very interested to hear about it but he was completely unaware of it.  A more appropriate year to assign to DNA would have been 1953 because that’s when DNA’s true structure was first discovered not 1865.

 

 

what is the chance that someone put only word neutron (NTRN) in correct position out of 6236 verses

 

the chance is 0,00016% = 1/6236 in other words the chance is 0, what is the chance that you put NTRN instead of other combinations NRTN, or NNRT or RNTN then chance is even smaller if you take this also in count.

What are the chances that you would have been born?  Out of billions of people your two parent’s got together, out of millions and millions of sperm just one made it.  There are many more factors but here you are, far more unlikely than the god you are claiming to support with this line of reasoning.  1:6236 is far shorter odds than winning the lotto but plenty of people do that every week.  Some of Qantum theory, which does not contain any room for a god, is tested to 13 decimal places, that’s 1:00000000000001 yet you think that 1:6236 is sufficient to prove god?

 

Are you aware that all books contain repeated words some with the same and some with opposite meanings.  That’s how language works.

 

To me it’s more telling that the quran proclaims that men and women are equal then goes on to explain in great detail why they are not.  Logical inconsistencies like that are more telling than all the patterns you may find in there to me.

 

So you are saying that the quran says that a television signal will take a second to cover 2000Km?  Factually wrong, such a signal will actually cover a little under 300000km in a second but such factual errors seem to be quite common in this book from what people have explained to me so far here.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Doc

 

No I’ve understood the argument that the quran is a spiritual text and not a book of science yet it is also claimed to be inspired by god and so inerrant so even though it is not a science text when it occasionally talks of science its statements must be true, isn’t that correct?

 

Now we see the quran claiming that man was created from clay, dust, a single person, earth, wet earth, quintessence and nothing.  None of those claims appears to be correct according to all the best evidence we have.

 

It gets worse from there with the quran describing nothing that any moderately intelligent person could not have intuited who had ever seen sex and birth which, lets face it, is pretty much everyone over the age of 12 in that day and age and that’s when it’s not making false claims such as the above.

 

So maybe the quran works as scripture but it fails as science and, even if science was not its aim, to be divinely inspired and so perfect what science it does talk about must be accurate. It’s not!

 

There are some very interesting and telling facts that the quran could have discussed but didn’t such as that we carry quite a few specific genetic defects shared with the great apes who, according to those here, we aren’t actually related to.  Does god make the same mistakes over and over?  Take Vitamin C as an example. Almost all animals can produce their own Vitamin C and so can’t suffer from scurvy.  Among the known exceptions are guinea pigs, orang-utans, chimps and humans.  There are four stages to Vitamin C production and corresponding DNA sequences and all of these animals have all of the genes needed.  In guinea pigs one of the stages is damaged and in humans a different gene is damaged interestingly the exact same damage is seen in the gene’s of our closest living relatives among the great apes.  That’s like finding two encyclopaedias with the same spelling mistake on the same chapter in the same line on the same page and only in that line and trying to claim that they were independently created with the same mistake.  Such arguments have lost in court before with the court upholding the idea that copied errors are proof of plagiarism but some here claim that god is above such logic.

 

Now back to your argument which basically boils down to, the quran mentions science only rarely to prove that it’s from god because it accurately describes things that would not be known for some time.  What then are we to think of the quran when we learn that much of that ‘scientific knowledge’ is actually false?  We were not created from wet earth or clay, we do not resemble a leach during our development and sperm do not come from behind our bladder. The proof you claim from the quran is actually a bunch of errors and mistakes.  Wouldn’t the authors have been better to keep quiet about things they did not know rather than including so many factual errors?

 

One quick correction here, I’d have to suggest that we did not discover microscopes rather we invented them. Sorry that’s nit-picking I know but it is true none the less.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

Yes I understood your view on the ‘double meaning’, that god hid away this information in a passage talking about something else entirely.  My point was that it would be more amazing if the passage had directly discussed future knowledge rather than it having to be ‘found’ by methods such as you are applying.  I’m not aware of anyone doing similar research on other books so I can’t show you what such methods would produce I can only give you the example of the bible code methods applied to other texts.  These methods named and dated the death of American presidents and many other ‘famous’ events in history and all from a book that is a translation of the original.  They claimed that finding this hidden information in the text proves that god has inspired the bible through the translation process so even the English books we read today are still his inspired word.  As I said when the same methods are applied to other text the same sort of ‘miraculous sentences’ appear. I see no reason to suspect that you would not find many similar coincidences if you put the same amount of effort into looking for them in other texts but I’m not aware of anyone putting in the time and effort that that would require.

 

Of course 3:7 could also be a handy doge for any pieces of information that doesn’t appear to make sense, you just tell the questioner that it will make sense one day because god said so.  If there is no god this is a very handy inclusion wouldn’t you agree?

 

You say there are no such ‘miracles’ in other books but I’ve already explained that many similarly amazing ‘miracle’ passages have been found in the bible and in Moby so I’m not sure what else I can say on that one.  They may have used a different method but it was none the less a method that will display hidden information in the text, information that the original authors could never have hidden there which is a ‘miraculous’ thing to find in there.

 

Gregor Mendel formulated his thesis between 1863 and 1864 most likely and first presented it in 1865 then published it in 1866.  Plenty of years you could have picked there so that makes it easier to find coincidences but wait, Mendel was completely unaware of DNA his work was amazing and it was on inheritance and the digital nature of inheritance but DNA would not be discovered till long after his death.  I’m sure he would have been very interested to hear about it but he was completely unaware of it.  A more appropriate year to assign to DNA would have been 1953 because that’s when DNA’s true structure was first discovered not 1865.

 

 

What are the chances that you would have been born?  Out of billions of people your two parent’s got together, out of millions and millions of sperm just one made it.  There are many more factors but here you are, far more unlikely than the god you are claiming to support with this line of reasoning.  1:6236 is far shorter odds than winning the lotto but plenty of people do that every week.  Some of Qantum theory, which does not contain any room for a god, is tested to 13 decimal places, that’s 1:00000000000001 yet you think that 1:6236 is sufficient to prove god?

 

Are you aware that all books contain repeated words some with the same and some with opposite meanings.  That’s how language works.

 

To me it’s more telling that the quran proclaims that men and women are equal then goes on to explain in great detail why they are not.  Logical inconsistencies like that are more telling than all the patterns you may find in there to me.

 

So you are saying that the quran says that a television signal will take a second to cover 2000Km?  Factually wrong, such a signal will actually cover a little under 300000km in a second but such factual errors seem to be quite common in this book from what people have explained to me so far here.

 

Russell

 

 

 

s

 

 

 

My point was that it would be more amazing if the passage had directly discussed future knowledge rather than it having to be ‘found’ by methods such as you are applying. 

 

somewhere it has, somwhere not, and where it has not discussed directly but coded in the other text of the quran beacuse if it was used directly nobody would understand the word and many generations would pass and nobody would understand if he Used exact word Neutron with wocals (E,U,O) so what did God do? he then programed this word neutron , its consonant letters into the other words by combing two words , "if you see" = iN TRN and place it on correct position in the quran to match it wight ratio between neutron and electron, same he did with proton.

 

 

so actually this is better way of transfering information, he give double information in this way, and if he used exact word NEUTRON nobody would understand it from the time of Muhammed until the year 1932 when james chadwick discovered it and named it. 

 

 

 I can only give you the example of the bible code methods applied to other texts. 

 

 

You say there are no such ‘miracles’ in other books but I’ve already explained that many similarly amazing ‘miracle’ passages have been found in the bible and in Moby so I’m not sure what else I can say on that one.  They may have used a different method but it was none the less a method that will display hidden information in the text, information that the original authors could never have hidden there which is a ‘miraculous’ thing to find in there.

 

 

no it has not, i have read both bible and i have seen that moby example, that was really terrible, there is absolutely no such nummerical miracles in those two books. trust me i have seen it.

 

if there is such example then show me clearly and so we can test it.

 

 

but let have a look at this claim neutron in the quran, use this letters NTRN  copy these arabic letters NTRN and put it in quran search in options when yo usearch for words and and letters 

 

 ن ترن

 

and put it here in orginal text of the quran in arabic

http://www.answering-christianity.com/cgi-bin/quran/quran_search.cgi?search_text=&search_type=The+Entire+Noble+Quran&arabic=1&B1=Search

 

and you will get this result

2h34kev.jpg

 

you can confirm it with your own eyes and hands

 

i want you to show me such example in bible and moby so we all can check and verify, if we dont get such example then it is only rubbish talk that bible and moby contain such info.

 

 

 

 

Gregor Mendel formulated his thesis between 1863 and 1864 most likely and first presented it in 1865 then published it in 1866.  Plenty of years you could have picked there so that makes it easier to find coincidences but wait, Mendel was completely unaware of DNA his work was amazing and it was on inheritance and the digital nature of inheritance but DNA would not be discovered till long after his death.  I’m sure he would have been very interested to hear about it but he was completely unaware of it.  A more appropriate year to assign to DNA would have been 1953 because that’s when DNA’s true structure was first discovered not 1865.

 

 

offcicially history of DN begins from year 1865

 

evidence

http://www.prophase-genetics.com/history_dna_paternity.html

 

The following is a brief history of DNA discovery, analysis, and testing. Highlighted are the significant advances over the last 140 years that evolved into the DNA testing industry and the paternity testing information available today.

1865

The theories of heredity attributed to Gregor Mendel, based on his genetic profiles of pea plants, are well known to any biology student. However, his genetic profiles were so unprecedented at the time, it took 34 years for the rest of the scientific community to catch up. The short monograph, Experiments with Plant Hybrids , in which Mendel described how traits were inherited, has become one of the most enduring and influential publications in the history of science.

1900

The science of genetics was finally born when Mendel's work was rediscovered by three scientists - Hugo DeVries, Erich Von Tschermak, and Carl Correns - each one independently researching scientific literature for precedents to their own "original" work.

1935

Andrei Nikolaevitch Belozersky isolated DNA in the pure state for the first time.

1953

James Watson and Francis Crick proposed the double-stranded, helical, complementary, anti-parallel model for DNA. Nature magazine published James Watson's and Francis Crick's manuscript describing the double helical structure of DNA.

1958

Coenberg discovered and isolated DNA polymerase, which became the first enzyme used to make DNA in a test tube.

1966

The genetic code was "cracked". Marshall Nirenberg, Heinrich Mathaei, and Severo Ochoa demonstrated that a sequence of three nucleotide bases (a codon) determines each of 20 amino acids.

1972

The first successful DNA cloning experiments were performed in California.

1973

For the first time, scientists successfully transferred deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) from one life form into another. Stanley Cohen and Annie Chang of Stanford University and Herbert Boyer of UCSF "spliced" sections of viral DNA and bacterial DNA with the same restriction enzyme, creating a plasmid with dual antibiotic resistance. They then spliced this recombinant DNA molecule into the DNA of a bacteria, thereby producing the first recombinant DNA organism.

1976

The NIH released the first guidelines for recombinant DNA experimentation. The guidelines restricted many categories of experiments.

1978

Studies by David Botstein and others found that when a restrictive enzyme is applied to DNA from different individuals, the resulting sets of fragments sometimes differ markedly from one person to the next. Such variations in DNA are called restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs), and they are extremely useful in genetic studies.

1980

Kary Mullis and others at Cetus Corporation in Berkeley, California, invented a technique for multiplying DNA sequences in vitro by, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). PCR has been called the most revolutionary new technique in molecular biology in the 1980s. Cetus patented the process, and in the summer of 1991 sold the patent to Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. for $300 million.

1984

Alec Jeffreys introduces technique for DNA fingerprinting to identify individuals.

1985

Genetic fingerprinting enters the court room.

1989

Creation of the National Center for Human Genome Research, headed by James Watson, which will oversee the $3 billion U.S. effort to map and sequence all human DNA by 2005.

1990

The Human Genome Project, the international effort to map all of the genes in the human body, was launched. Estimated cost: $13 billion.

1992

The U.S. Army begins collecting blood and tissue samples from all new recruits as part of a "genetic dog tag" program aimed at better identification of soldiers killed in combat.

1993

An international research team, led by Daniel Cohen, of the Center for the Study of Human Polymorphisms in Paris, produces a rough map of all 23 pairs of human chromosomes.

1995

Former football player O.J. Simpson is found not guilty in a high-profile double-murder trial in which PCR and DNA fingerprinting play prominent roles.

1997

Researchers at Scotland's Roslin Institute report that they have cloned a sheep--named Dolly--from the cell of an adult ewe. Polly, the first sheep cloned by nuclear transfer technology bearing a human gene, appears later. Also, leading geneticists expressed shock and dismay as word spread of the US Patent and Trademark Office announcement that it would allow patents on expressed sequence tags (ESTs), short sequences of human DNA that have proven useful in genome mapping.

1998

A rough draft of the human genome map is produced, showing the locations of more than 30,000 genes.

2000

Scientists announce that they have essentially cracked the human genetic code - a decade-long effort by over 1,000 researchers that could revolutionize the diagnosis and treatment of diseases once considered incurable. Decoding the 3 billion chemical "letters" in human DNA is seen as one of history's great scientific milestones - the biological equivalent of the moon landing.

 

 

evidence nr 2

 

http://www.timetoast.com/timelines/114598

 

 

evidence nr 3

 

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/dnaanniversary/

A Brief History of DNA's Discovery

 

1865 Gregor Mendel, in experiments with peas, theorizes about how traits are passed on from one generation to the next.

 

1869 Swiss Scientist Friedrich Miescher isolates a material in cells that will eventually become known as "deoxyribonucleic acid" or DNA. He calls it "nuclein."

 

1909 German geneticist Wilhelm Johannsen coins the term "gene" to describe units of heredity.

 

1911 America scientist Thomas Hunt Morgan shows that these units of heredity are located on chromosomes. He receives the Nobel Prize in 1933.

 

1929 American biochemist Phoebus Levene determines the chemical makeup of DNA, identifying its four bases - - adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine.

 

1943 English biochemist William Astbury makes the first X-ray diffraction images of DNA's structure.

 

1952 Work with viruses and bacteria by American scientists Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase supports the theory that genes are made of DNA.

 

1953 At Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, Francis Crick and James Watson describe the double helix structure of DNA and suggest how genetic material is copied. Their idea of a double helix formation is based on X-ray diffraction images made by Kings College's Rosalind Franklin, who was part of a lab led by Maurice Wilkins. Watson, Crick and Wilkins receive the Nobel Prize in 1962.

 

For a more in-depth timeline, visit:

 

Celebrating Life, a joint project by Nature, U.K. Medical Research Council and The Royal Society

 

The National Human Genome Research Institute

 

 

do you believe now quran has prophecied DNA and even RNA molecules? if not, why not, give us evidence and argument for your dissbelief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

What are the chances that you would have been born?  Out of billions of people your two parent’s got together, out of millions and millions of sperm just one made it.  There are many more factors but here you are, far more unlikely than the god you are claiming to support with this line of reasoning.  1:6236 is far shorter odds than winning the lotto but plenty of people do that every week.  Some of Qantum theory, which does not contain any room for a god, is tested to 13 decimal places, that’s 1:00000000000001 yet you think that 1:6236 is sufficient to prove god?

 

Are you aware that all books contain repeated words some with the same and some with opposite meanings.  That’s how language works.

 

To me it’s more telling that the quran proclaims that men and women are equal then goes on to explain in great detail why they are not.  Logical inconsistencies like that are more telling than all the patterns you may find in there to me.

 

So you are saying that the quran says that a television signal will take a second to cover 2000Km?  Factually wrong, such a signal will actually cover a little under 300000km in a second but such factual errors seem to be quite common in this book from what people have explained to me so far here.

 

Russell

 

 

 

1:6236 is far shorter odds than winning the lotto but plenty of people do that every week.  Some of Qantum theory, which does not contain any room for a god, is tested to 13 decimal places, that’s 1:00000000000001 yet you think that 1:6236 is sufficient to prove god?

 

you forget more stuff not only that you need to put the letter on correct posotion 1:6236

 

you also need to put consonant letter in correct order like this NTRN , and not like this NRTN, NNRT, TRNN,TNRN and so on.

 

 

 

Are you aware that all books contain repeated words some with the same and some with opposite meanings

 

what????

 

show me who reapeat same number of time  for example word man 24 times and woman 24 times, or angel 88 times and devils 88 times. show me only one book besides quran wich have such nummerical programming where opposite words are mentined same number of times.

 

 

So you are saying that the quran says that a television signal will take a second to cover 2000Km?  Factually wrong, such a signal will actually cover a little under 300000km in a second but such factual errors seem to be quite common in this book from what people have explained to me so far here.

 

Russell

 

 

no, no and no, i dont say that, you dont understand me man

 

i said that chapter spoke about image transmission or teleportation of materia in a second in distance of 2000 km. and in that chapter we can only find consonant letter TLVSN and nowhere else in the whole book. Nobody said that teklevision will take a second to cover 2000km.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

I guess one point that I hadn’t researched till now was the actual mass ratios for the Proton and the Neutron.  The Neutron’s value is actually 1838.683605(11) which, with rounding is pretty close to 1839 as stated.  The proton’s value is 1836.15267245(75) which with rounding is not the 1837 that you claimed to get from the quran.  1837 is well outside the error bars for this figure.  How did your god get it wrong all those years ago?  Did he pick the older, less accurate value to quote so that people in a certain era would believe he wrote the book while those who came later and had access to the more accurate measure would realize that he didn’t know physics?  What does it say about your god when his inerrant word is plain wrong like this?

 

I’d have to say that I agree with you that there are no miracles in the bible or in moby but the method does indeed pull very specific and accurate passages from both books, passages that the original authors could never have hidden in there just as your method pulls information from the quran that the original authors could not have implanted.  Now what I have never found was anyone who was willing to put in the time and effort to dig through some other text with the same methodology that you have applied to the quran to prove that it doesn’t’ work, the closest we come is the bible code which can be computerized which when tested does produce comparable results from moby and the bible despite how amazingly improbable the results looked when only the bible had been tested exactly the way your results look amazing with no other book has been examined in the same way.

 

You seem to be clutching at straws when you say “the official history of DNA started..” sure historians point to Mendel’s amazing work in defining some of the mathematical characteristics of heredity (genetics) but that was so many years before DNA was discovered and Mendel actually formulated his theory in the years before that date and did not publish it till the year after so your date is somewhat arbitrary anyway and does not refer to DNA directly at all.

 

 

do you believe now quran has prophecied DNA and even RNA molecules? if not, why not, give us evidence and argument for your dissbelief.

 

No the evidence you have presented does not support the idea that the quran knew of DNA because it had the date wrong.  Mendel was studying heredity not DNA which would not be discovered for many years after his death.  Sure his research lead into the field of genetic studies and DNA is a component of that but it was not discovered at the date given.  The numbers given for Proton – Electron weight is actually wrong and false statements don’t support the idea that the source is inerrant to me at least.  You are trying to support an incredible claim and that requires extraordinary evidence but this does not even come close interesting and improbable though it may be.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andalusi

 

I guess one point that I hadn’t researched till now was the actual mass ratios for the Proton and the Neutron.  The Neutron’s value is actually 1838.683605(11) which, with rounding is pretty close to 1839 as stated.  The proton’s value is 1836.15267245(75) which with rounding is not the 1837 that you claimed to get from the quran.  1837 is well outside the error bars for this figure.  How did your god get it wrong all those years ago?  Did he pick the older, less accurate value to quote so that people in a certain era would believe he wrote the book while those who came later and had access to the more accurate measure would realize that he didn’t know physics?  What does it say about your god when his inerrant word is plain wrong like this?

 

I’d have to say that I agree with you that there are no miracles in the bible or in moby but the method does indeed pull very specific and accurate passages from both books, passages that the original authors could never have hidden in there just as your method pulls information from the quran that the original authors could not have implanted.  Now what I have never found was anyone who was willing to put in the time and effort to dig through some other text with the same methodology that you have applied to the quran to prove that it doesn’t’ work, the closest we come is the bible code which can be computerized which when tested does produce comparable results from moby and the bible despite how amazingly improbable the results looked when only the bible had been tested exactly the way your results look amazing with no other book has been examined in the same way.

 

You seem to be clutching at straws when you say “the official history of DNA started..” sure historians point to Mendel’s amazing work in defining some of the mathematical characteristics of heredity (genetics) but that was so many years before DNA was discovered and Mendel actually formulated his theory in the years before that date and did not publish it till the year after so your date is somewhat arbitrary anyway and does not refer to DNA directly at all.

 

 

 

No the evidence you have presented does not support the idea that the quran knew of DNA because it had the date wrong.  Mendel was studying heredity not DNA which would not be discovered for many years after his death.  Sure his research lead into the field of genetic studies and DNA is a component of that but it was not discovered at the date given.  The numbers given for Proton – Electron weight is actually wrong and false statements don’t support the idea that the source is inerrant to me at least.  You are trying to support an incredible claim and that requires extraordinary evidence but this does not even come close interesting and improbable though it may be.

 

Russell

 

 

 

 The proton’s value is 1836.15267245(75) which with rounding is not the 1837 that you claimed to get from the quran. 

 

not true

 

here is true weight of a proton is 0.18366x10^4 =and we make it 1,837 wich is totally correct

 

28k7jaq.jpg

 

 

 

evidence copied from

http://www.algebra.com/algebra/homework/Polynomials-and-rational-expressions.faq.question.166017.html

 

 

evidence nr2

http://chemistry.tutorvista.com/nuclear-chemistry/protons-and-neutrons.html

 

Some properties of proton are as follows.

  • e/m ration= 9.758 x104 coulomb /gm
  • Charge = 1.602 x 10-19 coulomb = 4.8 x 10-10 e.s.u
  • Mass = 1.6725 x 10-24gm

                 = 1.6725 x 10-27 kg

                 = 1.6725 x 10-29 quintal

                 = 1837 times of mass of electron or mass of one hydrogen atom     =1.00757 a.m.u.

 

evidence nr3

http://www.ehow.com/info_7777671_atom-electron-neutron-proton.html

 

Proton

 

Elements get their atomic number based on the number of protons found in each atom. This indivisible particle in the nucleus of an atom carries a positive charge, referred to as "1" on the atomic weight scale. A proton has a mass 1,837 times greater than that of an electron.

 

 

 

evdence nr 4

http://www.quora.com/Particle-Physics/Why-is-the-proton-so-much-more-massive-than-the-electron

 

Particle Physics: Why is the proton so much more massive than the electron?

 

The proton is about 1837 times more massive than the electron, yet holds the same charge. Why?
 
 
 
that is why you are wrong

 

 

 

You seem to be clutching at straws when you say “the official history of DNA started..” sure historians point to Mendel’s amazing work in defining some of the mathematical characteristics of heredity (genetics) but that was so many years before DNA was discovered and Mendel actually formulated his theory in the years before that date and did not publish it till the year after so your date is somewhat arbitrary anyway and does not refer to DNA directly at all.

 

 

 

the fact is they count DNA history from year 1865 when he officially published hiw work.

 

 

 

No the evidence you have presented does not support the idea that the quran knew of DNA because it had the date wrong. 

 

i clearly showed you evidence and you see clearly year 1865 as beging year of DNA, but you can deny it as much as you wich but people can see, they are not blind.

 

 

 

The numbers given for Proton – Electron weight is actually wrong and false statements don’t support the idea that the source is inerrant to me at least.

 

actually you are wrong not Quran, all those sites speak against you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×