Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[Zosimus]

The shift was due to Kant, a philosopher. Read Copernican Revolution of Philosophy. You are two centuries out of alignment. This separation is flawed as philosophy needs science while science need philosophy nor what Kant intended

I think you're clueless. Science, as we understand it, wasn't practiced before 1933. Even the word "scientist" didn't exist until 1834. Nevertheless, many people of learning discovered many valuable things before that time.

 

[Zosimus]

The translations/interpretations are so many but you have to understand that none of it is Quran. Quran is only the original Arabic text. A single letter, may not change in original text otherwise, it's not Quran. You may find a Bible in Greek, English, French or any language. But Quran is only the original Arabic text without any variation. Otherwise, it's only interpretations of Quran.



Of course these views are modern? Quran is not a resource in modern science. What are you talking about?

You are confusing the whole thing. Modern Science revolutionized our understanding of the world around us but the learning curve never ends. modern science provided new understandings/facts that were not known to us. Muslims (including myself) have seen that many of these modern facts are consistent with the original Arabic text of the Quran. Old Translations/interpretations could not capture actual meaning of the text because these facts were never known before. Even today, a translator without scientific background may not link the text to the scientific facts. Consequently, he wouldn't provide correct translation. So it's 100% the opposite. Interpretations/translations were not molded to match science but to the contrary, I can see that interpretations explained away from the scientific meaning in the original text.



I use lexicons my self. Different lexicons provide different meanings. Without some understanding of the language, you may easy get lost. Especially if you want to.



Maybe it's enough for you to quickly jump to your desirable conclusion but lexicons are not enough at all for someone who doesn't have any understanding of the language.



You still insist on your ignorant claim of Quranic Arabic? Again, formal Arabic is Quranic Arabic. This Standard Arabic version from 1938 is total nonsense. Quran is about 1400 years old. In fact, some of the oldest manuscripts are kept in the university of Birmingham. It was radiocarbon dated to the period between 568 and 645 AD. (The age means, its very likely that the writer lived in the time of the prophet). I have seen photos of these manuscripts and many others at later dates. I can easily read it/understand it. Same is true for any educated Arabic speaking person.



I am sorry but this just some ignorant nonsense. There is no such thing as 1938 edition of the Quran. The original text never changed. Before any hard copy is authorized, it had to be reviewed, scrutinized to make sure it's an exact match to original Arabic text. Then it would be authorized. This is what you are referring to (1938 edition) but its by no means any different at all, its not ALLOWED to change a very single letter from the original text of Quran. Otherwise, it's not Quran.

The amazing fact is that, you would find young kids (7 years old) in the Islamic world who memorize %100 the entire Quran. When they memorize it, again, a single letter change is not allowed. I would claim that it's impossible to entirely memorize any other book of the same size. This is amazing but the real miracle (at least to me) is the fact that none Arabic speaking Muslims can also memorize the entire Quran without a single letter deviation from original text. Its actually stated in Quran that Quran was made easy for remembrance.



Is the question whether Moore made these statements or not? I would say, see his video. Frankly, his statements may (or may not) make a difference for non muslims but in my case, it doesn't make any difference whatsoever. Again, I can read Quran, I can understand it and I can verify the consistency with the modern scientific facts for myself.


I can agree with many points of that video and disagree with some.

Yes, it's true that both scientists and Muslim scholars, should together review the meanings of these verses to update the interpretations of the original text but I don't agree that these scientists should be necessarily Muslims. In fact, they shouldn't (to make sure they are neutral without any bias). After all, what is required is only the scientific knowledge.

Quran is not stating theories at all. Only facts. I agree that linking the verse to theory may not be appropriate. I agree with this guy (Hafez Khan?) about using apparent meaning but apparent meaning depends on the specific knowledge of the reader.

You got my attention to this verse (Al-Anbiya 30). as an Arabic speaker, I also agree with his translation of the Quranic verse "Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens (sky) and earth were one but we broke it apart". Thats all what the verse literally say in Arabic. You may see different interpretations or translations according to individual understanding of scholars or translators. So what does it mean? Heavens and earth where one. what is this oneness mean? It's interesting that modern science States that the beginning was a "singularity" undefined singularity, after the singularity state, the separation took place at the big bang through which the universe was created. Quran doesn't identify the meaning of this "oneness" but neither does Science identify the "singularity" . Nonetheless, modern science support the singularity state at the beginning which I find it to be very consistent with this Quranic verse (Al-Anbiya 30).

That said, I told you the literal meaning of the verse, how would you understand it and whether you see it consistent with modern science or not, is up to you. In my case, I do see the consistency.

I like you. I don't agree with you, but I like you. However, I am not convinced that what you say is true.

Therefore, I ask you to read this text and tell me what it means.

 

[Shad]

The translations/interpretations are so many but you have to understand that none of it is Quran. Quran is only the original Arabic text. A single letter, may not change in original text otherwise, it's not Quran. You may find a Bible in Greek, English, French or any language. But Quran is only the original Arabic text without any variation. Otherwise, it's only interpretations of Quran.

There are variations of the Quran found. You point is moot.

Of course these views are modern? Quran is not a resource in modern science. What are you talking about?

Hindsight 20/20 along with distortion of not only vague terms into detailed ones.

You are confusing the whole thing. Modern Science revolutionized our understanding of the world around us but the learning curve never ends. modern science provided new understandings/facts that were not known to us. Muslims (including myself) have seen that many of these modern facts are consistent with the original Arabic text of the Quran. Old Translations/interpretations could not capture actual meaning of the text because these facts were never known before. Even today, a translator without scientific background may not link the text to the scientific facts. Consequently, he wouldn't provide correct translation. So it's 100% the opposite. Interpretations/translations were not molded to match science but to the contrary, I can see that interpretations explained away from the scientific meaning in the original text.

No I am pointing out the post hoc rationalization and distortions made by people that post nonsense such as these miracle claims. Interpretation were molded to fit, you own video demonstrated as much.

I use lexicons my self. Different lexicons provide different meanings. Without some understanding of the language, you may easy get lost. Especially if you want to.

Lexicons do not provides vastly different definitions.

Maybe it's enough for you to quickly jump to your desirable conclusion but lexicons are not enough at all for someone who doesn't have any understanding of the language.

Actually it is enough to demonstrate the distortions. Blood cloth becomes zygote, hilarious.

You still insist on your ignorant claim of Quranic Arabic? Again, formal Arabic is Quranic Arabic.

No it isn't.

This Standard Arabic version from 1938 is total nonsense. Quran is about 1400 years old. In fact, some of the oldest manuscripts are kept in the university of Birmingham. It was radiocarbon dated to the period between 568 and 645 AD. (The age means, its very likely that the writer lived in the time of the prophet). I have seen photos of these manuscripts and many others at later dates. I can easily read it/understand it. Same is true for any educated Arabic speaking person.

Actually it is fact. Read The Qurʾān in its Historical Context, ed. Gabriel S. Reynolds. Thee manucripts have variant reading, ordering and markings not found in modern edition which you read.

I am sorry but this just some ignorant nonsense. There is no such thing as 1938 edition of the Quran. The original text never changed. Before any hard copy is authorized, it had to be reviewed, scrutinized to make sure it's an exact match to original Arabic text. Then it would be authorized. This is what you are referring to (1938 edition) but its by no means any different at all, its not ALLOWED to change a very single letter from the original text of Quran. Otherwise, it's not Quran.

Actually it is fact. Read the source referenced above. There is a 38 edition based on a 36 edition based on a 24 edition. Scholarship easily shows you are wrong.

The amazing fact is that, you would find young kids (7 years old) in the Islamic world who memorize %100 the entire Quran. When they memorize it, again, a single letter change is not allowed. I would claim that it's impossible to entirely memorize any other book of the same size. This is amazing but the real miracle (at least to me) is the fact that none Arabic speaking Muslims can also memorize the entire Quran without a single letter deviation from original text. Its actually stated in Quran that Quran was made easy for remembrance.

Memorization isn't that amazing. People memorize the NT which is longer than the Quran. Argument from incredulity

Is the question whether Moore made these statements or not? I would say, see his video. Frankly, his statements may (or may not) make a difference for non muslims but in my case, it doesn't make any difference whatsoever. Again, I can read Quran, I can understand it and I can verify the consistency with the modern scientific facts for myself.

Moore took vague terms like blood cloth and chewed lump of flesh then applied technical terms without cause. Vagueness fallacy, ambiguity fallacy aka equivocation fallacy.

I can agree with many points of that video and disagree with some.

Okay....

Yes, it's true that both scientists and Muslim scholars, should together review the meanings of these verses to update the interpretations of the original text but I don't agree that these scientists should be necessarily Muslims. In fact, they shouldn't (to make sure they are neutral without any bias). After all, what is required is only the scientific knowledge.

Not just Muslim scholars, any scholar of the subject. Being Muslim only shows a bias since they already accept a presupposition regrading the text. In this case the miracle nonsense is a bias from Muslims. They want their text to be right so it is right....

Quran is not stating theories at all. Only facts. I agree that linking the verse to theory may not be appropriate. I agree with this guy (Hafez Khan?) about using apparent meaning but apparent meaning depends on the specific knowledge of the reader.

No it just distortion made after the fact.

You got my attention to this verse (Al-Anbiya 30). as an Arabic speaker, I also agree with his translation of the Quranic verse "Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens (sky) and earth were one but we broke it apart". Thats all what the verse literally say in Arabic. You may see different interpretations or translations according to individual understanding of scholars or translators. So what does it mean? Heavens and earth where one. what is this oneness mean? It's interesting that modern science States that the beginning was a "singularity" undefined singularity, after the singularity state, the separation took place at the big bang through which the universe was created. Quran doesn't identify the meaning of this "oneness" but neither does Science identify the "singularity" . Nonetheless, modern science support the singularity state at the beginning which I find it to be very consistent with this Quranic verse (Al-Anbiya 30).

I guess you missed the point in which he rejected your Big Bang nonsense and why. Watch the video again.

That said, I told you the literal meaning of the verse, how would you understand it and whether you see it consistent with modern science or not, is up to you. In my case, I do see the consistency.

You want to see the consistency using vagueness of terms and distortions. You were already sold on the view the Quran is true, any confirmation bias you find is accepted no matter how weak or fallacious it is.

 

[Shad]

I think you're clueless. Science, as we understand it, wasn't practiced before 1933. Even the word "scientist" didn't exist until 1834. Nevertheless, many people of learning discovered many valuable things before that time.

Read Kant. The work referenced was intended to separate the study of phenomena from noumena. Empiricism developed as a separate method after this point. However from his point of view philosophers were to be involved hand in hand with scientists to develop the noumen side. Read Einstein's views on philosophy. He divided scientists between philosopher scientists from practical scientists. The former are those that develop new methods and models, make new discoveries, etc. The later are those that only practice the methods already established, work within fields already established. He compared it to art in which one group develops a new form while the later are like craftsmen replicating it. The problem in modern times are the craftsmen are far more numerous, far more published and involved with the public sphere to a great extent. There is also a lack of dialogue with philosophers from these "craftsmen". On the other side far too many philosophers have no knowledge of of scientific topics but do not involve themselves in a proper dialogue in order to work together.

Your lack of knowledge regarding the philosophy of science is obvious.

 

[Zosimus]

Read Kant. The work referenced was intended to separate the study of phenomena from noumena. Empiricism developed as a separate method after this point. However from his point of view philosophers were to be involved hand in hand with scientists to develop the noumen side. Read Einstein's views on philosophy. He divided scientists between philosopher scientists from practical scientists. The former are those that develop new methods and models, make new discoveries, etc. The later are those that only practice the methods already established, work within fields already established. He compared it to art in which one group develops a new form while the later are like craftsmen replicating it. The problem in modern times are the craftsmen are far more numerous, far more published and involved with the public sphere to a great extent. There is also a lack of dialogue with philosophers from these "craftsmen". On the other side far too many philosophers have no knowledge of of scientific topics but do not involve themselves in a proper dialogue in order to work together.

Your lack of knowledge regarding the philosophy of science is obvious.

You have no idea what you're talking about. St. Thomas of Aquinas clearly expressed empiricism centuries before Kant when he said that there is nothing in the intellect which was not previously in the senses. So your claim that empiricism developed after Kant is demonstrably false. Muslim empirical scholars such as al-Haytham, born CE 965, were using the empirical method centuries before Kant was a gleam in his father's eyes.

I have yet to see a history of science that mentions Kant in any way more than obliquely. René Descarte had far more to do with science than did Kant.

 

[NoorNoor]

I like you. I don't agree with you, but I like you. However, I am not convinced that what you say is true.

Therefore, I ask you to read this text and tell me what it means.

I understand you don't believe me but why you think I have a need to lie to you or to anyone else on this forum?

Arabic is my first language. Reading this Arabic text is no challenge for me at all but the challenge is the English translation especially that this is an old Arabic grammar book (first two pages) that describes Arabic sentence structures. Nonetheless, I'll translate the first page which is on right side (without the side notes). here is the translation:

" In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful.

All praise is due to Allah, the lord of the worlds. every one who seeks knowledge of the Arabic grammar should be aware of hundred individual rules. Sixty of it is about the subject, thirty about the object, ten about the verbs and conjugation. with the will of God, I"ll summarize these three in three chapters. The subject will be addressed in the first chapter, object in the second chapter and conjugation in the third chapter. The first chapter about the subject addresses two categories, the literal and the abstract. the literal has two divisions, traditional and standard. The traditional includes forty nine subjects in five different groups."

 

[Zosimus]

I understand you don't believe me but why you think I have a need to lie to you or to anyone else on this forum?

Arabic is my first language. Reading this Arabic text is no challenge for me at all but the challenge is the English translation especially that this is an old Arabic grammar book (first two pages) that describes Arabic sentence structures. Nonetheless, I'll translate the first page which is on right side (without the side notes). here is the translation:

" In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful.

All praise is due to Allah, the lord of the worlds. every one who seeks knowledge of the Arabic grammar should be aware of hundred individual rules. Sixty of it is about the subject, thirty about the object, ten about the verbs and conjugation. with the will of God, I"ll summarize these three in three chapters. The subject will be addressed in the first chapter, object in the second chapter and conjugation in the third chapter. The first chapter about the subject addresses two categories, the literal and the abstract. the literal has two divisions, traditional and standard. The traditional includes forty nine subjects in five different groups."

 

[Shad]

You have no idea what you're talking about. St. Thomas of Aquinas clearly expressed empiricism centuries before Kant when he said that there is nothing in the intellect which was not previously in the senses. So your claim that empiricism developed after Kant is demonstrably false. Muslim empirical scholars such as al-Haytham, born CE 965, were using the empirical method centuries before Kant was a gleam in his father's eyes.

We are talking about the separation of the two, science and philosophy, not empiricism itself. More so Aquinas used empiricism for metaphysics, which are why his arguments are laughable now, while Kant pointed out how this failed for centuries. Kant separated empiricism as method for phenomena only due to the babble of people like Aquinas. You made the assumption again leading to another error.

I have yet to see a history of science that mentions Kant in any way more than obliquely. René Descarte had far more to do with science than did Kant.

Rene Descarte's view of empiricism relied on the idea god existing. Yet science these days holds no such view point. Rather different axioms were adopted. Rene's radical skepticism was followed however his rebuttal failed.

 

[NoorNoor]

You want to see the consistency using vagueness of terms and distortions. You were already sold on the view the Quran is true, any confirmation bias you find is accepted no matter how weak or fallacious it is.

What kind of terms should Quran logically use? Do you want to see terms such as "oblate spheroid earth", "zygote" and "singularity" in Quran to believe it? Do you want to see it in English as well?

These terms may not have existed or were common 1400 years ago (neither in Arabic nor English). Many of the specific scientific terms/it's translation in Arabic were recently added to the language. As I previously mentioned, Quran is not for scientist, the language had to be acceptable to everyone. It's illogical to expect Quran to use meaningless unknown terms or different language other than Common language of the people receiving the revelation (as long as the language can capture the intended meanings).

You think I am already sold on the view, that Quran is true (aren't you sold on the view that Quran is not true?) it's a meaningless argument. It's not about me or you but about a point of discussion. you claim, I want to see the consistency in verse such as "Al-Anbiya 30" but this consistency is not only manifested in a single verse. When you see multiple verses showing clear consistency with the same fact or other aspects of the same fact, then the probability of a coincidence is diminished. "Al-Anbiya 30" is consistent with the singularity state at the beginning, then we see another verse referring to the expansion of the universe which is "Adh-Dhariyat 47". The literal translation of the Arabic text is "With power, We constructed the the heaven (sky) and we are sure expanding it". Don't expect to see this meaning in translations. translators and scholars made an effort to understand/translate the verse in light of available knowledge to them, but the fact of the expanding universe was beyond their knowledge. thats why you wouldn't see it in their interpretations. nonetheless, if you have knowledge of the scientific fact and you can read original Arabic text, then you can immediately and clearly see it.

The correct meanings of the scientific facts were captured in Quran by the only possible Arabic language terms (simple and clear) that could be logically used.

 

[Zosimus]

We are talking about the separation of the two, science and philosophy, not empiricism itself. More so Aquinas used empiricism for metaphysics, which are why his arguments are laughable now, while Kant pointed out how this failed for centuries. Kant separated empiricism as method for phenomena only due to the babble of people like Aquinas. You made the assumption again leading to another error.

You said "...Aquinas used empiricism for metaphysics, which are why his arguments are laughable now..."

So you are saying that Aquinas' arguments are laughable now because of metaphysics or because of empiricism?

Rene Descarte's view of empiricism relied on the idea god existing. Yet science these days holds no such view point. Rather different axioms were adopted. Rene's radical skepticism was followed however his rebuttal failed.

Although true, this is irrelevant. Science nowadays requires statistical hypothesis testing, a method invented in the early 20th century. This is the reason I said that science, as we know it, was invented in 1933.

Can a dead salmon read your mind?
The result was statistically significant with a p-value of less than 0.001

 

[Segev Moran]

I believe you are quite wrong about that.

Give me one example please

 

[Zosimus]

Give me one example please

Do you believe that your eyes are reliable?
Do you believe that induction works?
Do you believe that empiricism leads to truth?
Do you believe that there are immutable natural laws that matter follows?

Are these beliefs, or do you have proof?

 

[Sapiens]

Things like the Quran, the Bible, or I Ching are just written in inexact and flowery language that often lets them be interpreted any old way you want. That hardly makes them science.

 

[Shad]

You said "...Aquinas used empiricism for metaphysics, which are why his arguments are laughable now..."

He did. He used such argument as first cause which is based on empirical observations to make an inductive metaphysical position "reasonable" Any secular philosophy class at secular universities will point out his mistakes.

So you are saying that Aquinas' arguments are laughable now because of metaphysics or because of empiricism?

Laughable due to his leap in logic. Laughable due his fallacious points. Laughable due to using empiricism to argue for what is by definition is not an empirical entity.

Although true, this is irrelevant. Science nowadays requires statistical hypothesis testing, a method invented in the early 20th century. This is the reason I said that science, as we know it, was invented in 1933.

I was talking about the true split between what is more or less a wide field of study which removed the metaphysical from one branch. Read Kant.


Can a dead salmon read your mind?
The result was statistically significant with a p-value of less than 0.001[/QUOTE]

Which is a single case and from a journalist with zero sources.

 

[Shad]

What kind of terms should Quran logically use? Do you want to see terms such as "oblate spheroid earth", "zygote" and "singularity" in Quran to believe it? Do you want to see it in English as well?

More than common definition found in the language at the time such as leech and blood clot.... The Greeks were fine putting forward the idea the Earth was a sphere, and said it outright, without issue.

These terms may not have existed or were common 1400 years ago (neither in Arabic nor English). Many of the specific scientific terms/it's translation in Arabic were recently added to the language. As I previously mentioned, Quran is not for scientist, the language had to be acceptable to everyone. It's illogical to expect Quran to use meaningless unknown terms or different language other than Common language of the people receiving the revelation (as long as the language can capture the intended meanings).

This is just retrofitting a vague set of two verses in the Quran into a detailed expansion ad hoc. Which is my point. You find the slimmest of leaps to claim the text is talking about complex biological stages yet uses terminology no better than Aristotle century after he wrote his work

You think I am already sold on the view, that Quran is true (aren't you sold on the view that Quran is not true?) it's a meaningless argument. It's not about me or you but about a point of discussion. you claim, I want to see the consistency in verse such as "Al-Anbiya 30" but this consistency is not only manifested in a single verse. When you see multiple verses showing clear consistency with the same fact or other aspects of the same fact, then the probability of a coincidence is diminished. "Al-Anbiya 30" is consistent with the singularity state at the beginning, then we see another verse referring to the expansion of the universe which is "Adh-Dhariyat 47". The literal translation of the Arabic text is "With power, We constructed the the heaven (sky) and we are sure expanding it". Don't expect to see this meaning in translations. translators and scholars made an effort to understand/translate the verse in light of available knowledge to them, but the fact of the expanding universe was beyond their knowledge. thats why you wouldn't see it in their interpretations. nonetheless, if you have knowledge of the scientific fact and you can read original Arabic text, then you can immediately and clearly see it.

You are sold on the view otherwise you would not be linking standard apologist arguments ad nauseam here. I am claiming your confirmation bias and leaps of logic are leading you to make laughable claims.

Adh-Dhariyat 47 can also mean widen and was used for a century prior to the Big Bang theory being published. Now its expanded.... ad hoc.

The correct meanings of the scientific facts were captured in Quran by the only possible Arabic language terms (simple and clear) that could be logically used.

More rationalization of vague, and laughably views, such as we are blood clots represents knowledge from God rather than Mo repeating what was already thought to be knowledge.

 

[Zosimus]

He did. He used such argument as first cause which is based on empirical observations to make an inductive metaphysical position "reasonable" Any secular philosophy class at secular universities will point out his mistakes.

Laughable due to his leap in logic. Laughable due his fallacious points. Laughable due to using empiricism to argue for what is by definition is not an empirical entity.

Look -- I'm not a mind reader. I can only respond to what you say. So when you say "...Aquinas used empiricism for metaphysics, which are why his arguments are laughable now...", I look at the verb and see that the verb is are. Then I scan backwards using either my memory or my eyes to determine which plural subject goes with that verb. Since the only plural noun therein is the word "metaphysics," I conclude that your claim is "metaphysics are why his arguments are laughable." I conclude that because that's what you said. This brings me back to the original point. I cannot read your mind and respond to your arguments. I can only respond to what you post.

I was talking about the true split between what is more or less a wide field of study which removed the metaphysical from one branch. Read Kant.

I know all about Kant. Kant had nothing to do with the development of science as we know it.

Which is a single case and from a journalist with zero sources.

Wrong. You had bothered to follow the link, you would have been led to http://prefrontal.org/files/posters/Bennett-Salmon-2009.pdf

 

[gnostic]

Science is about refuting or verifying any explanatory or predictive statement (eg hypothesis or theory). And refuting and verifying can on achieve through testing or finding evidences.

Science is about explaining the WHAT and the HOW, not in the WHY or the WHO.

If you are interested in WHY, then you are better off seeking WHY ( or even WHO) in philosophy or psychology.

Nothing in natural science is immutable; for any law, theory or hypothesis can be questioned, challenged and changed.

While Newton's laws of motion and theory on gravitation are still relevant and used for any object moving at speed slower than the speed of light, it is useless out in space. The Newtonian model is also limited or useless in object smaller than an atom, eg quantum field theory and particle physics.

The Newtonian model is simply limited and outdated.

 

[Shad]

Look -- I'm not a mind reader. I can only respond to what you say. So when you say "...Aquinas used empiricism for metaphysics, which are why his arguments are laughable now...", I look at the verb and see that the verb is are. Then I scan backwards using either my memory or my eyes to determine which plural subject goes with that verb. Since the only plural noun therein is the word "metaphysics," I conclude that your claim is "metaphysics are why his arguments are laughable." I conclude that because that's what you said. This brings me back to the original point. I cannot read your mind and respond to your arguments. I can only respond to what you post.

Is/Are issues are common. If you can not figure this out you are not as smart as you think you are. You ignore the context and focus on grammar which is a red herring.

No it is your conclusion as you are interpreting what you want rather than simply acknowledging the is/are issue which is apparent.

His arguments are laughable as he is using the wrong method for metaphysics. That is my conclusion and was when first stated.

I know all about Kant. Kant had nothing to do with the development of science as we know it.

Yes he did as he hammered home the point that empiricism fails for noumena thus he argued for two views being separated.

Wrong. You had bothered to follow the link, you would have been led to http://prefrontal.org/files/posters/Bennett-Salmon-2009.pdf

I did follow the link, it never led to any source you linked above. You had to search for the study after the fact. Point being your citation was still in error.

Your study is specific, which covers fMRI studies and problems with the machine, you turned into a generalization. Your point is moot

 

[NoorNoor]

More than common definition found in the language at the time such as leech and blood clot.... The Greeks were fine putting forward the idea the Earth was a sphere, and said it outright, without issue.

Literally, the Arabic word "alaqah" means leech or suspended thing. the embryo, during this stage "alaqah stage", in suspended from the womb and obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother (Exactly like a leech) Other than illogical argument that other terms (modern or scientific?) should have been used in Quran. The word "alaqah" is absolutely the most accurate word that could have been used for the specific intended meaning. No other Arabic word could have been more accurate. Your ignorance of the language is the reason for this claim. if you had any knowledge of the language, I would have challenged you to find more accurate word for that meaning (other than modern scientific terms). Unfortunately you don't, yet you make such baseless claim about a language that you absolutely have no knowledge about simply and clearly because you are sold on a view.

https://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a-img1.jpg

This is just retrofitting a vague set of two verses in the Quran into a detailed expansion ad hoc. Which is my point. You find the slimmest of leaps to claim the text is talking about complex biological stages yet uses terminology no better than Aristotle century after he wrote his work

The verses simply said heaven and earth were one and God broke it apart (singularity then a big bang). The other verse said that God is expanding the heavens which is confirmed by observations of the universe. The verses are simple and clear. The confusion is not in the original text at all but in the interpretations of scholars who lived hundreds of years ago and where not aware of the modern scientific facts.

It maybe considered a leap of logic if it was only one or two verses but when you see many verses that show clear consistency with modern scientific facts in a very simple and clear language, then it's not a coincidence.

You are sold on the view otherwise you would not be linking standard apologist arguments ad nauseam here. I am claiming your confirmation bias and leaps of logic are leading you to make laughable claims.
Adh-Dhariyat 47 can also mean widen and was used for a century prior to the Big Bang theory being published. Now its expanded.... ad hoc.

I am not making any claim. I can read the language myself and understand it. I see the consistency with modern scientific facts. You argue the meaning of Adh-Dhariyat 47 based on interpretations or translations of people who had absolutely no knowledge of the scientific facts but You can neither read nor understand the original text.

More rationalization of vague, and laughably views, such as we are blood clots represents knowledge from God rather than Mo repeating what was already thought to be knowledge.

The prophet was illiterate and lived in an illiterate environment 1400 hundreds years ago in the desert of Arabia with no access to the knowledge of the Greeks or any others.
His first step to knowledge (not only him but an entire nation) was through the first verse of Quran "Al-Alaq" meaning "The leech".

The first verse "Al-Alaq/the leech" said " Read in the name of your Lord who created, created man from a leech, read and your lord is the most majestic, who taught with the pen, taught man what he knew not"

In about 100 years, this illiterate nation transformed to be the most advanced civilization on earth (at that time) and lasted for about 600 years. Its true that the islamic golden age ended long time ago (the 13th century) but during the golden age, the foundation for modern science were established. Without this foundation, modern science as we know it today, wouldn't have been possible.

 

[Sapiens]

Literally, the Arabic word "alaqah" means leech or suspended thing. the embryo, during this stage "alaqah stage", in suspended from the womb and obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother (Exactly like a leech)

See ... that's putting a modern meaning to an ancient fable that really does not fit. If you actually believe that there is any similarity between a leach digesting a blood meal through it's alimentary canal and an embryo's connection through its placenta, then you know no biology whatsoever and should drop out of this conversation.