Addressed and refuted in the paper linked. Your picture removed the yoke sac which is part of the embryo and forms out lower body such as our stomach and "guts" Ironically the "cord" is from the yoke sac... Your description is nothing remarkable as Hippocrates already noted the embryo hangs from a cord joined with a vein which extends into the uterus and has blood running through it.
Also note the word also means blood cloth which was perfectly acceptable centuries until this miracle nonsense started. Again something observable by anyone and a conclusion based on ignorance.
A leech maintains it's own bodily functions without the host; it breathes, pumps blood, etc. A embryo can not function without the parent's biological function sustaining it.
The Greek were able to provide description without word gymnastics which equating a leech with an embryo. Allah should of picked a better language to communicate with
You are arguing that an embryo is not a leech or not identical to a leech. Of course its not. This is an irrelevant argument. The discussion is about using the word "Alaqah" for this specific stage of the human embryo. the word "Alaqah" in Arabic has multiple meanings (suspended thing, leech or blood clot). At this stage, the embryo is suspended from the womb of the mother, obtains nourishments from the blood of the mother like a leech and also has an external appearance similar to blood clot. The arabic word is very accurate for the intended meaning. If you claim it's not, then provide the correct word. if you have no clue what would be the correct word, then you should stop talking about something that you are totally ignorant about.
The Earth never existed for billions of years after the BB event thus the verse is wrong. I already pointed out how poor your argument is from a Muslim physicist.
The argument that Earth never existed for billions of years after the BB is totaly irrelevant. The verse doesn't address any specific time frame for the development of any astronomical structures or earth. The verse specifically addresses the fact that the begining was a singularity that was broken apart (At the big bang).
As I told you, I can agree with many things that this Muslim Physicist said but Not every thing. I guess this is the case for you as well. Isn't it? he is not the reference neither for me nor for you.
Expanding is a modern interpretation made after the theory was published. Before it was just vast and wide.
Wrong, expanding is not a modern interpretation at all. It's a literal meaning of the word of the original Arabic text of the Quran. In fact, I am not sure if you would see it in any old or new interpretation of the Quran. Only in the original text.
. Also the verse is about Allah have done something, past tense, and capable of it, not an on going effect
Wrong, The literal meaning is " and we are sure expanding it" it's sure an ongoing effect. It's not a past tense at all. See...you are repeating something you read without any knowledge or understanding simply because you are sold on that view. So please don't continue arguing with me that the word is a past tense. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Your prior arguments are flawed. Any further researching based on your flawed premise will not lead to a conclusion supported by even a weak argument.
Meaningless, I can repeat the exact same words to support any claim. It doesn't mean any thing.
There is no coincidence since the ideas were already floating around for centuries prior to Islam.
Maybe some ideas such as the spherical shape of earth was floating around but many Ideas such as the beginning was a singularity or expansion of the universe and many others were not floating around at all.
You are claiming you can read Classical Arabic based on read Standard Arabic. Heck you do not even know modern Quran use a standard model thus are not the same as the sources used. You then assume this makes you an expert, it doesn't.
Nonsense argument. You insist to argue about something you are totally ignorant about. No, I am not an expert but it's a relative issue. Compared to your knowledge of Arabic and Quran, I would definitely be the expert. So don't argue from ignorance about the Arabic language or Quran.
Too bad there are examples of literate people that worked with Muhammad such as his scribe and his physician. Heck Abu Bakr was literate.... Your interpretation is wrong. The illiteracy of the people from the verse is in regards to scripture not language and writing.
Again, you are making an irrelevant argument. We are talking about an illiterate environment in the desert of Arabia 1400 years ago. you are arguing that the prophet was trying to get knowledge from others to insert in Quran. The question is "why should he do that". This type of knowledge was not impressive or meaningful to any one in that environment. They can't even understand it or verify whether it's right or wrong. It doesn't even matter. This info is only relevant to us today.
Already pointed out Arabia was not illiterate as a whole. Much of your foundation are based on acquiring Persian, Indian and Greek knowledge. The Quran nor Islam provided any direct discoveries rather just like any religion provided inspiration. Inspiration is not a source of anything but inspiration
You know, I am tired of repeating the word irrelevant. Knowledge is never a start from scratch. It's always based on acquiring available knowledge of others and building on it. Do you know any scientist who started without first acquiring existing knowledge of others? Yes, Muslims acquired knowledge from every source available at that time and they sure built on it and actually established the foundation of modern science.
Yes, for sure the relegions provided inspiration but are you aware of any relegions that provided such urge for knowledge that totally transformed a nation from total ignorance to be the most advanced civilization on earth for about 600 years within less than 100 years. Islam provided the concept of perfect order/reason that controls every thing in existence and provided the urge to study that order.
You also seemed to forgot the majority of population of this empire for the first centuries was not Muslim but Christians. Christians which translated the majority of the source material for these discoveries. Islam didn't inspire them to anything
Yes, many were Christians. But don't forget this period was the dark ages for the Christian world. Christians were citizens in the empire, even if they actually helped with translations that doesn't mean they are responsible for the scientific revolution of the Islamic golden age. Muslim scientists such as Ibn al Hytham, Al Beruni, Omar Khayam, Al Farabi and so many others gets all the credit.
You also forget the cultural heritage of Central Asian which was a driving force for scientific development for centuries. If you look at the number of Muslim scientist Arabized Persians are far more represented than Arabs themselves.
Yes, many of those scientists were from Egypt, Persia, Uzbekistan and many other areas across the empire. What they have in common is that they were Muslim Scientists living in the Islamic empire. Islam is not about racism.
Again, they did acquire the knowledge from every source available, exactly as any scientist should do. And they sure built a lot on it.
Do you know that the numerals used in Europe and the Americas (the ten digits: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) are actually Arabic numerals. Fibonacci is the one who popularized the system to the western world (on 1200). Imagine our world without these numbers.
A pop-science video for children. Please..
Sure, this is exactly the idea. It's for kids who have no knowledge of the subject. Many, regardless of their age or level of knowledge may not know much knowledge of the scientific achievements/influence of the Golden age of Islam.
