Quran and Science : Just wanted some comments

[MFaraz_Hayat]

Neither do I.
Why in the world do you have to believe that the koran/quran (or however it is spelled) has to be explaining science in a manner that can be turned and changed as scientific knowledge changes.

You act as though the verses are written like the "explanations" you provide with them.
The fact is that they are not written in any such way that they can mean only one thing.

Yet you go one like there is only one possible way to interpret them.
You also get upset when others disagree with your interpretation.
You even hint to burning in hell over it.

I also do not understand why you try so hard to make Muslims and everyone else for that matter, out to be so stupid back then.
That there was no way that they could know that when you put your hand in a fire that it causes pain.
That they were so stupid that they could not possibly know about fetus, even after observing miscarriages.

If I were A Muslim, I would, quite frankly, be rather ticked off at how you claim my ancestors to be so stupid.

I donot provide single interpretations. Proof is the word Alaqah. I provided three interpretations for it and all are correct.
So do you think that miscarriaged fetus are it? Could they have possibly shown the teeth like marks on embryo (chewed like lump, mudgah In Quran)? Could they have shown that first the bones grow and then the muscles? I think these things occur at microscopic level. At first, as we all know the embryo is pretty small.
As far as burning of hand is concerned. Why does the Quranic verse especially says that skins would be restored? Why inner flesh and other parts not mentioned? Flesh would have seemed more obvious, "at that time" as you people put it.
Imagine, you people do not accept a single verse of Quran to be divine, and here I am frightening you guyz with verses about hell. The intention of the posting of this verse was to show that Quran puts emphasis, on restoration of skin so that sinners may feel pain.
I am not implying my ancestors were stupid. This is the Word Of God, not mine, not Prophet Muhammad's nor anyone else.
If Quran can be changed, please try and explain to me one verse the meaning of which I have changed?

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

Clearly your tent pegs are deficient in some manner.
In answer to post 1, again:
Qur'an and Science: Embryology It's not a bad article, and appears quite well researched, despite where it's located. I can say that, because I actually read it, suffering from the delusion that the content was somewhat more important than the accompanying illustrations. A radical idea I know...
Now, before we scream 'bias!' (like we kind of did before), I'd just like to note that 'The Commission on Scientific Signs' - from whence come all these 'scientific accuracies' - can not exactly be considered an unbiased source (no matter how far you stretch) and has been said by people cited as non-Islamic expert references by that very organisation to employ some pretty dodgy methods of 'verification'.
Oh, and as to you asking if I'd read the latest version of Professor Moores textbook, the one quoted was a later edition than the much lauded revised 3rd edition with additional Quranic references.
So, in short, your reference in this case contradicts your revealed scientific information by virtue of a later edition of his textbook (if you'd like I can go find some further experts in the field who agree with the previously cited portion of textbook), and the '3 veils' that you tried to save your 'science' with is nothing that wasn't documented well before by people like Galen.
Unless we're going to insist now that not only were these people completely stupid and unobservant, but also existed in a vaccuum, which at this stage would come as no great surprise.

Personally, I thought that you guys would have appreciated non-muslim scientists accepting Quran's revelations to be accurate, rather than any site. Any ways here is a response to later part of post, that i Gave Before and you did not answer.

"Well, finally a post worthy of time-spending.:yes:
First of all, check my original post. Keith Moore was referenced specifically, on the issue that the embryo in it's early stages looks like a chewed lump (referred as mudgah in quran) and resembles a leech. As far as his comment on bone growing simultaneously, check the latest edition of his book and the part of Dr. Naik's speech I have provided below.

Now initially, you told us that without any knowledge one may get the idea that muscles come later. Argument is pointless, since I will never agree with you here nor you with me. Therefore, I seek your comment on Quran calling embryo a mudgah chewed like substance and alaqah leech like substance etc. . Can these too be called mere guesswork? They are scientifically accurate.

As far as the link you have provided: I don't know whether the matter has been written by a biased person or no. What is the authenticity of this article, is there any reliable source? I read a part, where scientists claimed to have taken verses out-of-context. Explain to me what is out-of-context here in the verses I have provided.
I am also adding this part of Zakir Naik's speech, which I hope will clear your doubts:
"Later on the Qur’an says… ‘We made the ‘Mutga’ into ‘Izama’…bones - Then clothed the bones with flesh.’ Dr. William Campbell said, and I do agree with him, that… ‘The precursors of the muscles and the cartilagees… that is the bones, they form together - I agree with that. Today embryology tells us that the primordia of the muscles and the bones - they form together between the 25th and the 40th day, which the Qur`an refers to as the stage of ‘mudga.’ But they are not developed… they are not developed. Later on, at the end of the seventh week, the embryo takes form of human appearance - then the bones are formed. Today modern embryology says the bones are formed after the 42nd day, and it gives an appearance of a skeletal thing. Even at this stage when the bones are formed, the muscles are not formed. Later on, after the 7th week and the starting of 8th week, are the muscles formed. So Qur’an is perfect in describing first ‘Alaqa’, then ‘Mutga’, then ‘Izama’, then clothed with flesh, and when they form - the description is perfect" "

Secondly, to show the inaccuracy of your link:
First, I read that part where Quran says " surely man did we create from a drop of semen". I know that everyone at that time knew that humans were born of semen. However check this, in the verse it is clearly written from a drop of semen. Surely, a person does not release a drop of semen during sexual intercourse. However, it is true that out of many sperm cells only a minute quantity reach the ovum ( descibed by Quran as nutfah: small drop).

Now, as far as that medical expert who was the friend of Prophet, reference of hadith was not given.

Further, If greek scholars discovered a fact ( which was accurate) and later that fact was mentioned in Quran, does not imply that Quran has been copied.
Majority, of the arguments are those presented by Dr. William Campbell in a debate with Dr. Zakir Naik . I have the complete text file, which I can upload for you, if you want. All these allegations were refuted.

Up till now, each verse I claimed to be scientifically accurate, was backed by some scientist. Not a site, that claims a lot.

 

[McBell]

Is not the premise of your argument that no one could have known these "scientific facts" back when the Quran was being revealed?

And that this premise that no one could have known these things back then is 'proof' that the Koran is divinely written?

What arrogance to assume that you can frighten me with the threat of hell.
I merely point out that you made the attempt.
Rest assured that your feeble attempt of using the threat of hell did not in any way frighten me.
Nor has it caused me to believe any different about your forer effect verses.

The whole flesh of the hand thing you have decided to try...
Are you going to claim that no one back before the Koran got burned and then healed?
Because you pretty much have to make such a claim for your theory to hold any water.

Furthermore, you seem to be thinking that there was only one miscarriage back then.
If there was only one miscarriage then you might have a point.
OR if every single miscarriage back then happened at the same stage of development you might have a point.
However, I do not buy into either one of those premises.


So basically, in a nutshell, you needs to show that the people back then honestly could not have known about the "scientific" statements you allege the Koran makes, back before the Quran was written.

Or you can continue on with trying to show how you are not merely using the forer effect to put your holy book on a pedestal.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

Is not the premise of your argument that no one could have known these "scientific facts" back when the Quran was being revealed?

And that this premise that no one could have known these things back then is 'proof' that the Koran is divinely written?

What arrogance to assume that you can frighten me with the threat of hell.
I merely point out that you made the attempt.
Rest assured that your feeble attempt of using the threat of hell did not in any way frighten me.
Nor has it caused me to believe any different about your forer effect verses.

The whole flesh of the hand thing you have decided to try...
Are you going to claim that no one back before the Koran got burned and then healed?
Because you pretty much have to make such a claim for your theory to hold any water.

Furthermore, you seem to be thinking that there was only one miscarriage back then.
If there was only one miscarriage then you might have a point.
OR if every single miscarriage back then happened at the same stage of development you might have a point.
However, I do not buy into either one of those premises.


So basically, in a nutshell, you needs to show that the people back then honestly could not have known about the "scientific" statements you allege the Koran makes, back before the Quran was written.

Or you can continue on with trying to show how you are not merely using the forer effect to put your holy book on a pedestal.

First of all, I did not make an attempt to frighten you. The post had sarcasm in it. By it I wished to imply that it felt pretty stupid that u guyz who do not believe in Quran, were actually worried about a verse of burning in hell, posted earlier by me. ( U did mention it first).
Can u plz explain the forer effect?
Secondly, about the miscarriages part. Imagine, if it would have been so easy just to observe miscarriaged babies, and from them observe the features of the embryo in it's early stages, then shouldn't the scientists have discovered it earlier? I mean, why were these discoveries actually made in 19th and 20th century? If it was only a matter of studying miscarriaged babies.
Think about what you are saying. You are stating, that an illiterate man, who had the responsibility of State on his soldiers, was the teacher of muslims ( gave religious lectures each day) had enough time to study these miscarriaged babies? Secondly, he had enough equipment 1400 years back to actually make these statements? I don't think it is true. It is impossible, or these discoveries would themselves have been made much earlier.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Cough Cough,

 

[credance]

I think it is sad that your are clutching to these straws of evidence with such determination to prove the validity of Muhammed's "divinely inspired revelations". It reminds me of the experiment in hypnosis where the subject is given an onion to eat and told it was an apple. No one could convince him it was not an apple.

 

[McBell]

First of all, I did not make an attempt to frighten you. The post had sarcasm in it. By it I wished to imply that it felt pretty stupid that u guyz who do not believe in Quran, were actually worried about a verse of burning in hell, posted earlier by me. ( U did mention it first).
Can u plz explain the forer effect?
Secondly, about the miscarriages part. Imagine, if it would have been so easy just to observe miscarriaged babies, and from them observe the features of the embryo in it's early stages, then shouldn't the scientists have discovered it earlier? I mean, why were these discoveries actually made in 19th and 20th century? If it was only a matter of studying miscarriaged babies.
Think about what you are saying. You are stating, that an illiterate man, who had the responsibility of State on his soldiers, was the teacher of muslims ( gave religious lectures each day) had enough time to study these miscarriaged babies? Secondly, he had enough equipment 1400 years back to actually make these statements? I don't think it is true. It is impossible, or these discoveries would themselves have been made much earlier.

You got to be kidding me?
Please tell me that you are not serious?
That you do not honestly think that Mohammad had to do all the research himself?
The straws you have to cling to....

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

You got to be kidding me?
Please tell me that you are not serious?
That you do not honestly think that Mohammad had to do all the research himself?
The straws you have to cling to....

Ok let me abandon this "straw" as you put it. Imagine people of Arabia, 1400 years ago researched on embryology, from miscarriaged babies to discover facts only revealed in 19th and 20th century. It is still not possible. In fact, I see this as an insult to modern day scientists that, the facts that they have discovered after hours of painstaking research recently, using modern equipment, were already discovered by the muslims 1400 years back ( as you put it).
Rather, even they should abandon these modern equipments ( ultra sound etc.) and just observe miscarriaged babies from now on, so as to get better info on embryology.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

I think it is sad that your are clutching to these straws of evidence with such determination to prove the validity of Muhammed's "divinely inspired revelations". It reminds me of the experiment in hypnosis where the subject is given an onion to eat and told it was an apple. No one could convince him it was not an apple.

Link this analogy of yours to any example that I gave.

 

[credance]

Okay, have it your way. But if I am to believe that Muhammed was divinely inspired by the evidence that you give I must also believe that Socrates, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc. were even more divinely inspired since their work is so much more detailed and clear.
If these revelations were divine in nature why did it take until the "19th or 20th" century for the rest of the world to catch on.

 

[McBell]

Since I am not looking to the Koran/Quran/Kor'an/Qur'an/Ko'ran/Qu'ran for ratification, I am not needing to rely upon the forer effect, to further ratify my ratification.
Nor do I have any need/compulsion/drive/urge to present to others how well I use the forer effect to ratify my ratification.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Further, If greek scholars discovered a fact ( which was accurate) and later that fact was mentioned in Quran, does not imply that Quran has been copied.

No, what it shows is that divine revelation is not required to come up with such a fact, unless once again we're taking the immensely stupid while living in a vaccuum stance.
There's been plenty of information known by people well into the past - a case to point being some very 'modern' facial reconstruction techniques that have lately been found to have been used in Ayurvedic medicine (and documented at the time) - that western medicine has only recently (within the last few hundred years) caught up on. We like to think we're ahead of the game, but the west spent an awful lot of it's history as the great unwashed and ignorant of the world and we've had to play catch ups.
The simple fact of the matter is, you spend a lot of time saying anything presented by anyone else may be biased, however everything you're tossing out there clearly has an agenda behind it (I know, I know,you have no agenda, but hey all you ignorant masses, Islam must be true because of the handy dandy Quranic notebook of scientific fact (by the way, here's some pictures, but I haven't read the content of the article with them so who the hell knows what that says )), and the majority of it relies on the premise that the entire Islamic world and anyone it could possible have come in contact with was stupid, and anyone who had a clue wasn't allowed access.
The only places you will find information on these scientific miracles are pro Islamic sites (there's that agenda again) and the sites that refute them. Find an independant - a truly independant - source from a non Muslim scientist who hasn't gotten anything out of The Commission of Scientific Signs - no trips to conferences, no stays in hotels, not a single cracker - who agrees that the Quran must be divinely inspired because it's chock full of science.
It's a holy book...why the hell can't people just appreciate it for what it is instead of trying to bastardise it into something it isn't?
Now, as an aside, has it never crossed your mind to wonder why all these non-Muslim scientists who have rubber stamped the facts in your book haven't converted to Islam? Surely if they really believe that the Quran is divinely inspired, that would be the logical outcome.

 

[Fluffy]

Heya MFaraz_Hayat,
Unfortunately, I just wrote a rather detailed reply to you and then accidentally deleted it. I apologise if, consequently I have missed anything vital in my attempt to duplicate it below.

You are probably aware that there are several other similar threads like yours on RF that attempt to demonstrate that the Qur’an contains information that is traditionally thought to have been discovered by science many years before it was actually discovered by science. These threads, post many passages from the Qur’an and make a variety of claims about each one, just as you have done here.

I believe that text interpretation is a very complex and demanding task. In this case, this task is even greater since you are presenting the claims of another, Prof. Keith Moore, so we actually have to analyse our interpretation of two texts. However, I see that you have not included links to the relevant texts. I strongly suggest that you update your original post with these links (or if you can no longer edit your post, I would be happy to do it for you if you like) so that those who are not familiar with the texts can see the relevant sections in context.

Out of convenience, I have provided the links here.
The scriptural links: Sura 39:6, Sura 23:12-14, Sura 75:37-39, Sura 82:7-8.
A Scientist's Interpretation of References to Embryology in the Qur'an taken fromThe Journal of the Islamic Medical Association, Vol.18, Jan-June 1986, pp.15-16 by Prof. Keith Moore can be found here.

Foetus Protected By Three Veils of Darkness (Sura 39:6)
I will deal with this passage alone for now. When we have finished debating it, then we can move on to the next passage.

Firstly I feel that you have stated Moore’s claim considerably more strongly than the author, himself, put it. Here is the claim in the author’s original words and I have highlighted the areas that are relevant to this point:

“The three veils of darkness" may refer to: (l) the anterior abdominal wall; (2) the uterine wall; and (3) the amniochorionic membrane (Fig. 1). Although there are other interpretations of this statement, the one presented here seems the most logical from an embryological point of view.

Moore is not saying that this is the most reasonable interpretation of the Qur’an. He is saying that this is the interpretation that is most coherent with “an embryological point of view”. However, there is no reason to assume that the Qur’an does cohere with “an embryological point of view” unless one believes that it is the word of God. Therefore, there is no reason to favour this interpretation unless one has already come to the conclusion that it will agree with scientific discovery. However, it is much simpler to assume that the passage should be interpreted in a way that is reflective of the knowledge of it’s authors since this then does not require evidence for a source of this extra knowledge of which we have none.

In other words, since this interpretation of the passage does not evidence that the Qur’an is the word of God but only that an understanding of this passage that views it as the word of God is reconcilable with modern scientific discovery, we have no need of it unless that is how we view the Qur’an already.

Secondly, Moore mentions Galen's "On The Formation of The Foetus" and suggests that this text would have been known to the writers of the Qur'an. This text describes all three veils. Moore has simply updated them to modern scientific terminology. He is not claiming that the writers of the Qur'an did anything other than lift the three veils directly from Galen.

Thirdly, even without Galen, these three veils can be identified through observation alone. The following researcher, Dr. Lactantius, produces three documented events in his article "Embryology in the Qur'an" that would enable doctors of the 7th century to know of these 3 veils even if they themselves did not make the observations themselves (which is far more reasonable than positing that they received the information from a divine source). The full text can be found here.

This is entirely observable to the naked eye, as Hippocrates described dissecting pregnant dogs to find puppies sitting in the amniotic sac inside the uterus [30]. A rather macabre practice of Queen Cleopatra was to rip open the wombs of her pregnant slave-girls in order to see their foetuses, according both to Rabbinic traditions and Plinius [31]. Furthermore, the Romans introduced the custom of opening the womb of a pregnant woman if she died before she had delivered her baby; the woman and her baby would be buried side-by-side, thus giving rise to the term "Caesarean section".

Summary

1. Moore intended his interpretation of Sura 39:6 to be from the point of view of the Muslim and is not suggesting it as evidence of divine inspiration for the Qur'an.
2. Moore refers to a text that identifies the "three veils of darkness" half a century before the Qur'an was written.
3. The "three veils of darkness" only require the most basic observation of the womb in order for them to be discovered and there are numerous documented customs and events that provide an opportunity for this discovery to have been made prior to the writing of the Qur'an. This is a more reasonable explanation than divine inspiration.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

Heya MFaraz_Hayat,
Unfortunately, I just wrote a rather detailed reply to you and then accidentally deleted it. I apologise if, consequently I have missed anything vital in my attempt to duplicate it below.

You are probably aware that there are several other similar threads like yours on RF that attempt to demonstrate that the Qur’an contains information that is traditionally thought to have been discovered by science many years before it was actually discovered by science. These threads, post many passages from the Qur’an and make a variety of claims about each one, just as you have done here.

I believe that text interpretation is a very complex and demanding task. In this case, this task is even greater since you are presenting the claims of another, Prof. Keith Moore, so we actually have to analyse our interpretation of two texts. However, I see that you have not included links to the relevant texts. I strongly suggest that you update your original post with these links (or if you can no longer edit your post, I would be happy to do it for you if you like) so that those who are not familiar with the texts can see the relevant sections in context.

Out of convenience, I have provided the links here.
The scriptural links: Sura 39:6, Sura 23:12-14, Sura 75:37-39, Sura 82:7-8.
A Scientist's Interpretation of References to Embryology in the Qur'an taken fromThe Journal of the Islamic Medical Association, Vol.18, Jan-June 1986, pp.15-16 by Prof. Keith Moore can be found here.

Foetus Protected By Three Veils of Darkness (Sura 39:6)
I will deal with this passage alone for now. When we have finished debating it, then we can move on to the next passage.

Firstly I feel that you have stated Moore’s claim considerably more strongly than the author, himself, put it. Here is the claim in the author’s original words and I have highlighted the areas that are relevant to this point:



Moore is not saying that this is the most reasonable interpretation of the Qur’an. He is saying that this is the interpretation that is most coherent with “an embryological point of view”. However, there is no reason to assume that the Qur’an does cohere with “an embryological point of view” unless one believes that it is the word of God. Therefore, there is no reason to favour this interpretation unless one has already come to the conclusion that it will agree with scientific discovery. However, it is much simpler to assume that the passage should be interpreted in a way that is reflective of the knowledge of it’s authors since this then does not require evidence for a source of this extra knowledge of which we have none.

In other words, since this interpretation of the passage does not evidence that the Qur’an is the word of God but only that an understanding of this passage that views it as the word of God is reconcilable with modern scientific discovery, we have no need of it unless that is how we view the Qur’an already.

Secondly, Moore mentions Galen's "On The Formation of The Foetus" and suggests that this text would have been known to the writers of the Qur'an. This text describes all three veils. Moore has simply updated them to modern scientific terminology. He is not claiming that the writers of the Qur'an did anything other than lift the three veils directly from Galen.

Thirdly, even without Galen, these three veils can be identified through observation alone. The following researcher, Dr. Lactantius, produces three documented events in his article "Embryology in the Qur'an" that would enable doctors of the 7th century to know of these 3 veils even if they themselves did not make the observations themselves (which is far more reasonable than positing that they received the information from a divine source). The full text can be found here.



Summary

1. Moore intended his interpretation of Sura 39:6 to be from the point of view of the Muslim and is not suggesting it as evidence of divine inspiration for the Qur'an.
2. Moore refers to a text that identifies the "three veils of darkness" half a century before the Qur'an was written.
3. The "three veils of darkness" only require the most basic observation of the womb in order for them to be discovered and there are numerous documented customs and events that provide an opportunity for this discovery to have been made prior to the writing of the Qur'an. This is a more reasonable explanation than divine inspiration.

First of all, I did not refer keith moore because of his on 3 stages of darkness in uterus. Infact, I didn't even know about this till I visited the link you had provided. I only quoted Keith Moore, as he accepted that embryo does resemble a leech and a chewed like substance ( referred as mudgah in Quran).
Personally, I believe that a rebuttal would be pointless. It will delay our debate. For argument, I agree with you, that this " may " have meant something else.
Your comments on other passages would be appreciated. Though I must add, that there is no authentic proof, that Prophet Muhammad or his followers ( during Prophet Muhammad's Life) had read that book. This may have happened and may not have happened, so let us continue debate further.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

Since I am not looking to the Koran/Quran/Kor'an/Qur'an/Ko'ran/Qu'ran for ratification, I am not needing to rely upon the forer effect, to further ratify my ratification.
Nor do I have any need/compulsion/drive/urge to present to others how well I use the forer effect to ratify my ratification.

I have asked it before and ask again, can someone explain this forer effect to me.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

No, what it shows is that divine revelation is not required to come up with such a fact, unless once again we're taking the immensely stupid while living in a vaccuum stance.
There's been plenty of information known by people well into the past - a case to point being some very 'modern' facial reconstruction techniques that have lately been found to have been used in Ayurvedic medicine (and documented at the time) - that western medicine has only recently (within the last few hundred years) caught up on. We like to think we're ahead of the game, but the west spent an awful lot of it's history as the great unwashed and ignorant of the world and we've had to play catch ups.
The simple fact of the matter is, you spend a lot of time saying anything presented by anyone else may be biased, however everything you're tossing out there clearly has an agenda behind it (I know, I know,you have no agenda, but hey all you ignorant masses, Islam must be true because of the handy dandy Quranic notebook of scientific fact (by the way, here's some pictures, but I haven't read the content of the article with them so who the hell knows what that says )), and the majority of it relies on the premise that the entire Islamic world and anyone it could possible have come in contact with was stupid, and anyone who had a clue wasn't allowed access.
The only places you will find information on these scientific miracles are pro Islamic sites (there's that agenda again) and the sites that refute them. Find an independant - a truly independant - source from a non Muslim scientist who hasn't gotten anything out of The Commission of Scientific Signs - no trips to conferences, no stays in hotels, not a single cracker - who agrees that the Quran must be divinely inspired because it's chock full of science.
It's a holy book...why the hell can't people just appreciate it for what it is instead of trying to bastardise it into something it isn't?
Now, as an aside, has it never crossed your mind to wonder why all these non-Muslim scientists who have rubber stamped the facts in your book haven't converted to Islam? Surely if they really believe that the Quran is divinely inspired, that would be the logical outcome.

As a response to the scientists part: ( I had given this in a previous post)
Prof. Tagatat Tejasen, Chairman of the Department
of Anatomy at Chiang Mai University in Thailand,
has spent a great amount of time on research of
pain receptors. Initially he could not believe that
the Qur’an mentioned this scientific fact 1,400
years ago. He later verified the translation of this
particular Qur’anic verse. Prof. Tejasen was so
impressed by the scientific accuracy of the Qur’anic
verse, that at the 8th Saudi Medical Conference
held in Riyadh on the Scientific Signs of Qur’an and
Sunnah, he proudly proclaimed in public:

“There is no God but Allah and
Muhammad (pbuh) is His Messenger.”

Now, Again I must stress that Quran is not a science textbook . It has complete system of government and even ways of how to lead an honorable life. I am not trying to "bastardize" ( as you put it) into something else. If something is written in the Quran, I am merely publicizing it.
For all the people who think I am mis-interpreting Quran. Feel free, to provide the right interpretation of the verses.
Oh, and btw I think you missed out on those pictures.
Quran was revealed, as a guidance and book of miracles. Most atheists only consider Science as the truly greatest explanation to all things. How else Am I supposed to answer questions that why I believe in Islam, other than providing such verses to atheists. ( Do not think that I believe in Islam only because of these scientific miracles, to me Quran is far greater than science but this is the only way to explain to atheists).

 

[Fluffy]

First of all, I did not refer keith moore because of his on 3 stages of darkness in uterus. Infact, I didn't even know about this till I visited the link you had provided.

I think I must be misunderstanding what you are saying. Surely you must have known about this because you talk about it in your original post (red highlight added by me):

FOETUS PROTECTED BY THREE VEILS
OF DARKNESS
“He makes you,
in the wombs of your mothers,
in stages, one after another,
in three veils of darkness.”
[Al-Qur’an 39:6]
According to Prof. Keith Moore, these three veils of
darkness in the Qur’an refer to:
(i) anterior abdominal wall of the mother
(ii) the uterine wall
(iii) the amnio-chorionic membrane.

Personally, I believe that a rebuttal would be pointless. It will delay our debate.

I am responding directly to a claim that is made in the original post. If you don't want to debate that point because you didn't intend to make that claim then that is fine. However, so that I don't spend time preparing a response to only find that there are other portions of your post that you did not intend to state, can you please clean up your original post or otherwise state explicitly what it is you are claiming and why you are claiming it.

For argument, I agree with you, that this " may " have meant something else.

To be clear, I am not stating that it may have meant something else. It is evident that any passage could mean any number of things and it does not need a detailed argument to make this point.

My point is that this passage should not be interpreted in the way that Moore interprets it because it is not the most reasonable interpretation. In other words, it is less likely that Moore's interpretation is correct because it posits divine inspiration without providing evidence for it (except via circular argumentation). Therefore, a naturalistic interpretation is more likely.

Though I must add, that there is no authentic proof, that Prophet Muhammad or his followers ( during Prophet Muhammad's Life) had read that book. This may have happened and may not have happened, so let us continue debate further.

I agree.
However, there are two options:
1) Discovery X in the Qur'an is divinely inspired
2) Discovery X in the Qur'an is taken from an earlier natural source

If discovery X was made before the Qur'an was written and this can be evidenced then the second option becomes more likely because it has supporting evidence. The first option may still be true but it is less likely because it has no supporting evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have asked it before and ask again, can someone explain this forer effect to me.

The Forer effect goes back to a study that psychologist Bertram Forer first did in the 40s and has been repeated many times since. From an article on the Forer effect:

Forer gave a personality test to his students, ignored their answers, and gave each student the above evaluation [see the link above for the text that Forer gave to his students - Penguin]. He asked them to evaluate the evaluation from 0 to 5, with "5" meaning the recipient felt the evaluation was an "excellent" assessment and "4" meaning the assessment was "good." The class average evaluation was 4.26. That was in 1948. The test has been repeated hundreds of time with psychology students and the average is still around 4.2 out of 5, or 84% accurate.

In short, Forer convinced people he could successfully read their character. His accuracy amazed his subjects, though his personality analysis was taken from a newsstand astrology column and was presented to people without regard to their sun sign.

So, the Forer effect is the tendency of people to interpret vague statements as being highly accurate.

I also think there may be a fair bit of confirmation bias going on here: any random collection of statements will have some that are true (albeit by accident) and some that are false. It seems like you seize on anything that seems true (but may be quite vague... remember the Forer effect) as some sort of scientific prophesy, but are happy to dismiss anything that can't be interpreted the same way as poetry, metaphor, or beyond our understanding.

So there are vague but true-ish sounding statements in the Qu'ran? I'm sure there are. I'm also sure that there are similar statements in the Bible, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, and the folklore of Native American religions.

Heck, I'd bet dollars to donuts that even the Hardy Boys mysteries have a few statements in them that could be interpreted to be more or less true in a manner that would be beyond the level of scientific knowledge at the time the book was written.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

I think I must be misunderstanding what you are saying. Surely you must have known about this because you talk about it in your original post (red highlight added by me):



I am responding directly to a claim that is made in the original post. If you don't want to debate that point because you didn't intend to make that claim then that is fine. However, so that I don't spend time preparing a response to only find that there are other portions of your post that you did not intend to state, can you please clean up your original post or otherwise state explicitly what it is you are claiming and why you are claiming it.

To be clear, I am not stating that it may have meant something else. It is evident that any passage could mean any number of things and it does not need a detailed argument to make this point.

My point is that this passage should not be interpreted in the way that Moore interprets it because it is not the most reasonable interpretation. In other words, it is less likely that Moore's interpretation is correct because it posits divine inspiration without providing evidence for it (except via circular argumentation). Therefore, a naturalistic interpretation is more likely.

I agree.
However, there are two options:
1) Discovery X in the Qur'an is divinely inspired
2) Discovery X in the Qur'an is taken from an earlier natural source

If discovery X was made before the Qur'an was written and this can be evidenced then the second option becomes more likely because it has supporting evidence. The first option may still be true but it is less likely because it has no supporting evidence.

I actually meant that before you had posted the link, I personally knew no source (such as the provided link) where Keith Moore accepted these "stages of darkness" in Quran. If you would read my original post, I have accepted that major parts of explanations etc, are not mine but rather I have also copied from other sources.

For the issue of Prophet Muhammad allegedly copying from Greeks. I found this response of Zakir Naik to William Campbell, who made the same allegation against Prophet Muhammad ( In Debate Quran And Bible In Light Of Science). I find it to be satisfactory. (In he following statements, Bible has been criticized, I would tell you people that as I am copying this and it forms part of Zakir Naik's speech, do not blame me for going off-topic. This following reference answers the allegation that some verses of Quran might have been copied from Greeks):
"He said that the stages of development were mentioned by Hypocrites and by Gallon, and he showed the various slides. The point to be noted - Just because someone says something, which are matching with the Qur’an, that does not mean that Qur’an has been copied from that. Suppose I make a statement… suppose, if I make a statement, which is correct, which was said by somebody else earlier - That does not mean I have copied. It may be, It may not be. To use the conflict approach with the Qur’an… ‘Yes! He copied’ - Okay fine - But lets analyze. The Qur’an does not take the things which were wrong from Hypocrites.If he would have copied, he would have copied everything - it is logical. Unless he is a scientist… ‘Okay this is correct… Oh! This is wrong I won’t copy that - This is correct, I will copy that.’All the stages of Hypocrites, and Gallon is not the same as the Qur’an - Hypocrites and Gallon does not speak about ‘leech like substance.’ They do not speak about ‘mudgah’ at all - Where do they speak? Hypocrites and Gallon, at that time, they said that… ‘Even the women have got semen’ - who says that? - Even the Bible says that. If you read in the Bible, it is mentioned in Leviticus Chapter No.12, Verse No.1 to 12, that woman gives out seed - So actually Bible is copying from Hypocrites.And Bible says in Job… Bible says in Job, Chapter No.10, Verse No.9 and 10, that… ‘We have made the human beings from clay, like poured out milk and curdled cheese.’Poured out milk and curdled cheese, is exact plaguerisation from Hypocrites.Why plaguerisation? - Because surely that is not the word of God - That portion is unscientific.It was said by Hypocrites and Gallon, the Greeks, that… ‘Human beings are created like curdled cheese’ - And Bible copies that exactly.But Qur’an Alhamdulillah, and if you analyze and read the books on ‘Embryology, even of Dr. Keith Moore, he said that… ‘Hypocrites and the other people like Gallon, etc, they did give a lot of thing to embryology, initially, as well as Aristotle’ - Many were right, many were wrong.’And further he goes to says… ‘In the middle ages, or at the time of the Arabs, the Qur’an speaks about something additional.’ If it was exactly copied, why would Dr. Keith Moore in his book, give due credit to the Qur’an.He even gives due credit to Aristotle, to Hypocrites - but mentioned there… ‘Many were wrong.’ That, he does not mention with the Qur’an. That is enough proof, that Qur’an was not copied from the Greek time"

Well, I am all for continuing the debate. I see that you have mentioned that, Professor Keith Moore chose a less appropriate interpretation of the verse. I would like if you would present a more appropriate interpretation, so that I can comment on it and continue the Debate further.
​

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

The Forer effect goes back to a study that psychologist Bertram Forer first did in the 40s and has been repeated many times since. From an article on the Forer effect:



So, the Forer effect is the tendency of people to interpret vague statements as being highly accurate.

I also think there may be a fair bit of confirmation bias going on here: any random collection of statements will have some that are true (albeit by accident) and some that are false. It seems like you seize on anything that seems true (but may be quite vague... remember the Forer effect) as some sort of scientific prophesy, but are happy to dismiss anything that can't be interpreted the same way as poetry, metaphor, or beyond our understanding.

So there are vague but true-ish sounding statements in the Qu'ran? I'm sure there are. I'm also sure that there are similar statements in the Bible, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, and the folklore of Native American religions.

Heck, I'd bet dollars to donuts that even the Hardy Boys mysteries have a few statements in them that could be interpreted to be more or less true in a manner that would be beyond the level of scientific knowledge at the time the book was written.

If you think that I have quoted vague verses, feel free to correct me. I am open for correction . Plz tell me how those verses are vague and how I have mis-interpreted them ( plz include the correct interpretation).