Scientific Evidence That Islam is the true religion

[JerryL]

Someone else in another post claimed he was just the messiah so which is it.

Both statements are true.

Oh you mean the books that are constantly changing the more truth they uncover.

Yes, I mean the books that are more obsessed with being true than having been right. I mean the best understanding of the community of scholars. What do you mean? the two people on the planet that agree with you?

Peers or siblings. I said they have no siblings per say they do not have mothers or fathers.

That's what would make it an "analogy" rather than a literal statement.

The narrations in the hadiths for one.

And what is the validation for the narrations in the Hadith (BTW: which hadith?)

I will get it for you. I need to make wudu first and then i will get it just remind me please.

I've been on vacation for a week. Surely you can go get that now.

Right Dr. Maurice Bucaille is 1. Dr. Emeritus Keith L. Moore is one is the worlds most prominenet scientists in the fields of anatomy and embryology. Book entitled the Develping Human. Dr. Moore si the emeritus of anatomey and cell biology at the university of toronto Canada. He was Associate Dean of Basic sciences.

I find both of these Muslims asserting that the Quran is true. Please point at the part where they say that a baby is, in fact, a blood clot.

And you have yet to show any evidence.

I offered in post #231, you declined prof in post #232 saying:

". No. And You can refer me to some additional books i have. but it does not dispute the fact that many doctors support this."
​

But I am sure the DOCTORS I mentioned did not since they have degrees and since they support what is said in the Quran it should be clear you are wrong

And yet all you've done is mention them, while at the same time acknowledging your complete ignorance.

Conception begins when an ovum and sperm meet. Notice that neither ovums nor semen is found in blood (nor, by extension, blood clots). The fertilized egg is an embyronic stem cell (you may have heard of these... they are popular for stem-cell reasearch and we've placed a ban on funding creting new lines because they destroy fetuses). Again, this is not a blood clot.

Please find me one scientific journal in the past century that claims that a fetus is composed of platelets (the clotting agents in blood).

To who amongst his people or him. Again you have yet to show any evidence that he knew it. And if I wrote a book could he read it.

1. Muhammed did not write a book. The Quran was given by oral tradition.

The Qur'an was an oral text throughout the lifetime of Muhammad; it was also a fluid text. The complete text resided only in the memories of Muahmmad and his followers. As he added verses and reorganized the text, his followers would rememorize the text in the light of the additions or edits. This means that the Qur'an was a living text during the lifetime of Muhammad. Certain verses revealed to Muhammad were later repudiated by him as "satanic" verses revealed not by Gabriel but by Satan. These verses were expunged from the text that so many had memorized. - http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/QURAN.HTM
​

It seems obvious to me that you don't even know the history of the Quran. You don't understand the science in question etiher (you've admitted to that).

To be blunt, I'm tired of arguing basic, established facts with you. You are not even attempting to find the truth. Nevermind the stuff of legitemate disagreement. You are arguing the most simple of facts, accepted by the Muslim community for decades or centuries.

Is there anyone else here who actually asserts that Muhammed wrote (actually put quill to paper) the Quran?

Is there anyone else here who actually asserts that the earliest stage of human embryonic developmet is composed of platelets?

If there isn't, there's no point beating a dead horse with this poster.

 

[JerryL]

Okay... I'm gonna repeat myself one more time. Are you guys not reading my posts? Someone on this thread stated that the Quran was changing as we speak.

I don't believe that he was asserting that the text was chaning: merely that what we take from it was changing. That fact can be easily established by the simple fact that not everyone who follows it agrees on its message. There are those who believe that the Quran forbids killing children, and those who think it's accepted (for example).

This happens with every text, religious or secular.

So the doctors and scientists who stood by these verse didn't know what they were talking about? I'm just trying to make sense of the situation.. almost to the point where I want to contact the scientists and doctors who stood by that verse and ask them exactly why... I can't help but believe they will have a very good answer for me (I will try to contact a non-muslim). If I do get a hold of one I will be sure to post our discussion.

Not having their arguments here I cannot tell you what is right or wrong about them.

I can tell you that this is a very basic statement, and one I feel more than competent enough to understand (from the side of anatomy). I suspect that their support will change the meaning of the word here being translated as "blood clot", but I really don't know.

If you want to understand the cells in embryonic formation, just pick any accessable biologist or biology teacher and ask. Don't phrase it as a question related to the Quran and you should not have to worry about Bias.

"what kind of cells are embryos made of?"
"what kind of cells in blod form clots?"

It's the fastest growing religion since it's birth to this day.

That statement is inaccurate. If you want to go by gross numbers, Islam during Mohammed's life was not growing as fast as Christianity. If you want to go by percentage growth, Islam 20 years ago was not growing as fast as Wicca or Falun Gong.

What has come from the teachings of the Quran leads me to believe where it came from. My whole family and the whole muslim community here in London, Ontario Canada live by the guidelines of the Quran... I don't know one divorced muslim couple here in london (i know muslims get divorced but from my experience not yet)... I don't know any muslims in London who use drugs, I don't know one muslim here in London who gets smashed

Ditto me and athiests, I know one divorced atheist, none that do drugs, and none that get smashed.

Though I don't know if divorce is a good standard, as there are two reasons that people would not get divorced:
1) They choose well.
2) Divorce is difficult.

"1" I think is a good thing, "2" I think, is not. You'll find as well, within the religion, that divorce rates vary wildly from one culture to another.

I'm surprised you said "gitting smashed" instead of "drinks". Is not alcholol completely forbidden under the religion?

I don't know one muslim in London who doesn't have their life together.. and that to me is very interesting. Everyone in the muslim community where I'm from has their life in order... married, house, kids, happy, financially secure, stable.... if not married... living on their own, beautiful house, family oriented, succesfull profession. I BEG someone to come to where I live so I can show you this.

Rather circular isn't it? You live in a community of houses and everyone in it owns a house. The houses are expensive, and everyone that owns them is financially secure.

It's also fair to say that your statement is an overstatement. Not every muslim in your community has children (I'm assuming that the children in question are Muslim), as the children do not (or if they do, then their children do not)

Of course, I can say the same about my neighborhood. A bunch of beautiful family homes with fiscally secure families living in them.

the Quran teaches this unity. One of the things that made my girlfriend officially be my girlfriend was when she met my family, and muslim friends... she fell in love with the love we had for eachother.. and she also fell in love with the humbleness... I thank Islam and the Quran for that.

My ex-girlfriends are not only friends with me, they are still friends with my family. Most are in more regular communication with my relatives than they are with me. They all fell in love with my (mostly Christian) family, and though none started dating me because of them (they were dating me before they met), all said that my family added to my appeal.

Might I suggest that, again, them being Muslim is a conincidence rather than a causal factor?

Where is David Koresh now? Did he accomplish anything close to what Muhammed did? Are his teachings still spreading like a wild forest fire to this day? I never heard of him until today.

There's no one exactly like
Muhammed in every way. Is that what you are looking for me to say?

There's also no one exactly like David Korresh.

There's no one exactly like Ghandi.

There's no one exactly like Hitler.

The original poster made an argument that "Yes but all the religions are interpretations of the message God gave to the messenger." This statement was not true. Many are "straight from the horse's mouth", in many cases moreso than Isalm (the Quran is what AbuBakir asserted Muhammed said that Gabrial said that Allah said)

Well Judaism isn't lying... Moses spoke to God directly, something God only did with him. Christianity isn't lying about Jesus having some kind of contact with God either... he is a prophet and servant of God, there was some sort of communication in one way or another. Abraham was the friend of God... may I ask what religion was Abraham? Did his religion have a name? What about Adam, did Adam have a named religion? I'm gonna have to say that they submitted to God.. that's it. I don't see how anyone can disagree with me on that point... so I guess it's safe to say that they practiced Islam (peace/submission).

Moses did not share all of the same beliefs as Peter, who did not share all of the same beliefs as Paul, who did not share all of the same beliefs as Muhammed.

Ok.. if the book was by man and corrupted by man then why hasn't it changed like God promised?

Because God didn't promise it.

I'm saddened that you missed that obvious part. We know that the book is true because the book says that if the book were not true it would be chaning. Of course, if the book is not true, then we cannot rely on the claims of the book that it would change if it were not true.

The Lord of the Rings has not changed either. Nor has the Illiad. Are they therefore from God?

Even though Muhammed didn't write it himself... the people who did write it for him had to recite it to him also... therfore it's exactly how it was meant to be.

So then why was it written down?

If it was meant to be an oral tradition, why is it written? If it was meant to be written, why wasn't it written during Muhammed's life?

Why, also, where there different versions of the Quran until they were standardized after Muhammed's death? Why are there different understandings of this perfect book even today?

I read the Bible not as a muslim, but as a learner. There are one too many versions for me to know how it was meant to be. Jesus lived by the teaching which God taught Moses, yet the New Testament (Jesus Teachings) go against the Old Testament (Moses Teachings). Now I dont think that Moses and Jesus didn't teach the same thing, I just believe the people who compiled there teachings didn't do a good enough job. The New Testament was written 100 years after Jesus... that's a long time.... and the Old Testament was compiled after generations and generations of stories being passed down by scholars.... the Quran was compiled during the lifetime of Muhammed.. big difference don't you think?

No. The Quran was compiled after the death of Muhammed by Abu Bakir http://ibnalhyderabadee.wordpress.com/2006/04/11/legacy-of-abu-bakr-compilation-of-the-quraan/

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

I find both of these Muslims asserting that the Quran is true. Please point at the part where they say that a baby is, in fact, a blood clot.

Neither of them are muslim and again why when I said THICK COAGUALTED BLOOD you come with a blood clot.

offered in post #231, you declined prof in post #232 saying:

". No. And You can refer me to some additional books i have. but it does not dispute the fact that many doctors support this."
​

And yet all you've done is mention them, while at the same time acknowledging your complete ignorance.

Still waiting on your evidence.

Conception begins when an ovum and sperm meet. Notice that neither ovums nor semen is found in blood (nor, by extension, blood clots). The fertilized egg is an embyronic stem cell (you may have heard of these... they are popular for stem-cell reasearch and we've placed a ban on funding creting new lines because they destroy fetuses). Again, this is not a blood clot.

you are still on blood clot. Wow SAY IT WITH ME THICK COAGULATED BLOOD.

Please find me one scientific journal in the past century that claims that a fetus is composed of platelets (the clotting agents in blood).

1. Muhammed did not write a book. The Quran was given by oral tradition.

The Qur'an was an oral text throughout the lifetime of Muhammad; it was also a fluid text. The complete text resided only in the memories of Muahmmad and his followers. As he added verses and reorganized the text, his followers would rememorize the text in the light of the additions or edits. This means that the Qur'an was a living text during the lifetime of Muhammad. Certain verses revealed to Muhammad were later repudiated by him as "satanic" verses revealed not by Gabriel but by Satan. These verses were expunged from the text that so many had memorized. - http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/QURAN.HTM
​

It seems obvious to me that you don't even know the history of the Quran. You don't understand the science in question etiher (you've admitted to that).

Still no evidence

To be blunt, I'm tired of arguing basic, established facts with you. You are not even attempting to find the truth. Nevermind the stuff of legitemate disagreement. You are arguing the most simple of facts, accepted by the Muslim community for decades or centuries.

Still no evidence.

Is there anyone else here who actually asserts that Muhammed wrote (actually put quill to paper) the Quran?

I am ignorant of Quran, speak for yourself Muhammed did not write the Quran.

Is there anyone else here who actually asserts that the earliest stage of human embryonic developmet is composed of platelets?

If there isn't, there's no point beating a dead horse with this poster.

DR. YOU DO GET THE FACT THAT DR. KEITH MOORE. You still have given no evidence. Just list the evidence that is all i ask.

 

[JerryL]

Neither of them are muslim and again why when I said THICK COAGUALTED BLOOD you come with a blood clot.

Not much difference here:

Clot: Platelets.
Blood: Platelets, White Cells, Red Cells, Blood Plasma (basically)
Egg: Ovum
Zygote: Embryonic stem cells.

Notice that a Zygote is not made of any blood cells (until, eventually, it forms it's own blood).

Still waiting on your evidence.

Consider it served: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=602297

I can cut-n-paste from there if you like.

you are still on blood clot. Wow SAY IT WITH ME THICK COAGULATED BLOOD.

Blood. Clotted, coagulated, free flowing. Doesn't matter as they are all wrong.

I'm telling you that a cat is not a dog, and you are arguing over whether I said "Beagle" or "Rotweilder".

Still no evidence

Negative claim. Point me at the copy of the Quran from Muhammed's life.

Still no evidence.

You've provided volumnious evidence to my statement in this thread.

I am ignorant of Quran, speak for yourself Muhammed did not write the Quran.

Good to have your admission. Thanks.

DR. YOU DO GET THE FACT THAT DR. KEITH MOORE. You still have given no evidence. Just list the evidence that is all i ask.

Do you really want me to cut-n-paste from the other thread? It will take many posts to fit in as it's thousands of characters in length.

Again I'll ask: Is there anyone else here who believes that babies are formed by blood (clotted, coagulated, or otherwise) and therefore not by sperm and egg, or anyone who asserts that either sperm or eggs are composed of coagulated blood?

 

[Snowbear]

THICK COAGUALTED BLOOD you come with a blood clot.
you are still on blood clot.

MM - do you have any idea what a blood clot is? In short, it's what's formed when blood coagulates...

From Medline's online dictionary:

Main Entry: 1clot
Pronunciation: klät
Function: noun
: a coagulated mass produced by clotting of blood

Main Entry: co·ag·u·lum
Pronunciation: ko-ag-yu-lem
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -u·la /-le /; or -u·lums
: a coagulated mass or substance : [SIZE=-1]CLOT[/SIZE]

Main Entry: co·ag·u·la·tion
Pronunciation: ko-ag-yu-la-shen
Function: noun
1 a : a change to a viscous, jellylike, or solid state; especially : a change from a liquid to a thickened curdlike state not by evaporation but by chemical reaction <the spontaneous coagulation of freshly drawn blood> <the coagulation of milk by rennin> b: the process by which such change of state takes place consisting of the alteration of a soluble substance (as a protein) into an insoluble form or of the flocculation or separation of colloidal or suspended matter
2 : a substance or body formed by coagulation : [SIZE=-1]COAGULUM[/SIZE]
3 : disruption of tissue by physical means (as by application of an electric current) so that denaturation and clumping of protein occur <diathermic coagulation of tissues during surgery to seal bleeding blood vessels> -- see [SIZE=-1]ELECTROCOAGULATION[/SIZE],[SIZE=-1]PHOTOCOAGULATION[/SIZE]
​

I am ignorant of Quran, speak for yourself Muhammed did not write the Quran.

Are you serious? Isn't it common knowledge that Mohammed was illiterate and could not read or write ever during his lifetime? How could he have written the Quran himself? Every historical reference I've seen says the Quran was written down after Muhammed died... show us your evidence to the contrary, please?

 

[Ibn Al Hyderabadee]

First of all, As Salaam Alaykum Wa Rahamtullah, to all my msulim brothers on these forums, I pray that Allah gives you the ability to defend your religion, and I pray that you seek the knowledge of thsi religion to benefit yourself and others as well.

Secondly, its been a while since I have actually got myself into doscourses of comparative reigion (its been what...like 4 years now almost)

No. The Quran was compiled after the death of Muhammed by Abu Bakir

Since my blog is being referred to in this discussion I felt that it was necessary for me to come here and clarify this.

Firstly, it not Abu Bakir, its Abu Bakr or Aboo Bakr.

Secondly, lets clarify a few things.
1. The Quran is revelation from Allah as far as the msulims are concerned, whether this is believed by others or not, thats their choice.
2. The Quran was beign revealed all throughout the lif eof the Prophet Muhammad (Sal Allahu Alayhi wa Sallam/May Allah's Peace be upon him)
3. The Quran would be read by Muhammad atleast once a year in order by the Messenge rof Allah (Sal Allahu Alayhi wa Sallam/May Allah's Peace be upon him) in order to the angel Gibrel/Jibrail (May Allah's Peace be upon him)
4. The Quran would be recited by the Messenge rof Allah (May Allah's Peace be upon him) during the prayers eacha nd everyday of his life.
5. The compilation as a book in the memory of people existed, unliek the Bible, before the compilation as a physical book on paper.
6. The compilation in the form of a physical book, unliek the Bible, was done within a minimum year or two after the Prophet (May Allah's Peace be upon him)
7. The compilation was done with two witnesses who learned the verses directly from the Prophet (May Allah's Peace be upon him) for each and every verse of the Quran, this too was unliek the Bible.
8. The Quran is not only just a Book, unliek the Bible, but it is associated with other sciences that are too complex for the layman or many on these forums to understand in one sitting. The Quran has its own sciences thus it is preserved without a doubt in the same form as it was revealed. It has sciences liek tajweed - which is to pronounce the Arabic in an acceptable fashion exactly in the manner the Prophet (May Allah's Peace be upon him) pronounced it, again the Bible has no where near this type of field. aAnother one is the science of when and where the verses were revealed, again the Bible as recorded by Apostles will say it but you cant say whena nd where the Apostles wrote it. The Quran has a science to determine the context of revelation unliek the Bible.
9. The Qiran is not only preserved, its already too difficult for almost all orientalists to mess with its authenticity and its preservation, thus they turn to the another source whihc was revelead to the Prophet (May Allah's Peace be upon him) which is the Sunnah, which is also preserved and thus we have a religion that has a Revelation from God, with a Messenger to explain it(the Sunnah is preserved), with a 100,000 or so of his companions to transmit it to us and explain it as well(which happens to be preserved as well) along with the statements of the students of schoalrs(which is also preserved), alogn with their students, again is also preserved.

Looks liek the Muslims did a great job preserving the sources of their religion with very high accuracy, along with the earliest generations of muslims' interpretation of it and it seems to me that any and every other religion would be jealous of such a thing. The Christians woudl wish they had soemthign going for them but in reality they dont. Christians cant even understand their own theologya dn religion they tend to try to explain other's to them. As shown above the Christians dont have the same ancestoral interpretation or the same accuracy of preservation of their religious texts as the muslims, thus they shouldnt and I would liek to say they couldnt get into these types of discussions. The only point that coudl maybe discuss over is the theological aspect, but that too, soemone needs to understand logically to explain it to other in a rational fashion. And no Christian has yet to give a logically coherent explaination of the trinity, it makes no sense.

Im sorry if I offended anyone.

Allah Knows Best

 

[Ibn Al Hyderabadee]

Are you serious? Isn't it common knowledge that Mohammed was illiterate and could not read or write ever during his lifetime? How could he have written the Quran himself? Every historical reference I've seen says the Quran was written down after Muhammed died... show us your evidence to the contrary, please?

Exactly, you got it right most of it, the Quran was nt written by Muhamamd (May Alah's Peace be Upon Him) rather it was revealed to him and he recited it to others. But it was written durign hsi time, and this is not argued by anyone, even the smartest of orientalist schoalrs dotn argue thsi point, only the bigots try to argue thsi poitn, so its smarter for you to jsut stop with this now because at the end you proofs will be established for the truth and if you dont follow these then we willa ll know that you are a people of whims and desires.

The Quran was written on leaves, shoulder bones and on tablets by the Companions of Muhamamd (May Alah's Peace be Upon Him) during hsi lifetime by overa dozen of them and memorized by over atleast a 100,000 of them (atleast a par tof it).

What historical reference do you have?? It is true that it was written in a compiled fashion in a binded book after his death and that too within a year or two, only because the muslims kew that the revelation had ceased. But it was written durign his time, as the letters that he sent written by his companions to the kings and rulers of the surrounding areas, including the Christians are preserved and it has the verse sof the Qurna on them. So the Historical references you have are ignorant ones or you are just makign stuff up.

Allah Knows Best

 

[JerryL]

But it was written durign hsi time, and this is not argued by anyone, even the smartest of orientalist schoalrs dotn argue thsi point, only the bigots try to argue thsi poitn, so its smarter for you to jsut stop with this now because at the end you proofs will be established for the truth and if you dont follow these then we willa ll know that you are a people of whims and desires.

Actually, everything I can find agrees that it was ont written until well after Muhammed's death. You assertion that "this point is not argued" is not only disprovable, but is so easily dsprovable as to discredit your entire post as lacking even the pretext of reasearch.

There are, in fact, some who assert that the Quran was not written until several hundred years after Muhammed's death, citing the complete lack of a surviving manuscript older than about 700AD.

The Quran was written on leaves, shoulder bones and on tablets by the Companions of Muhamamd (May Alah's Peace be Upon Him) during hsi lifetime by overa dozen of them and memorized by over atleast a 100,000 of them (atleast a par tof it).

Please support this claim. Where are these things stored now?

This doesn't really even make sense. Certainly there was access to better materials that "leaves and shoulder bones"... like "paper".

 

[An-D]

The statement:

The Quran, which was revealed fourteen centuries ago, mentioned facts only recently discovered or proven by scientists. This proves without doubt that the Quran must be the literal word of God, revealed by Him to the Prophet Muhammad , and that the Quran was not authored by Muhammad or by any other human being. This also proves that Muhammad is truly a prophet sent by God. ... " We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)... " (Quran, 23:12-14)

There are only three points of evidence given in teh beginning of this thread. And I'm being told that these three points prove, without doubt, that Islam is THE TRUE religion?? Well, then let's look at these three points:
#1:

Literally, the Arabic word alaqah has three meanings: (1) leech, (2) suspended thing, and (3) blood clot. ...In comparing a leech to an embryo in the alaqah stage, we find similarity bet
ween the two2 as we can see in figure 1. Also, the embryo at this stage obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother, similar to the leech, which feeds on the blood of others. ...The second meaning of the word alaqah is “suspended thing.” This is what we can see in figures 2 and 3, the suspension of the embryo, during the alaqah stage, in the womb of the mother. ...The third meaning of the word alaqah is “blood clot.” We find that the external appearance of the embryo and its sacs during the alaqah stage is similar to that of a blood clot. This is due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo during this stage4 (see figure 4). Also during this stage, the blood in the embryo does not circulate until the end of the third week.5 Thus, the embryo at this stage is like a clot of blood.

#2:

The next stage mentioned in the verse is the mudghah stage. The Arabic word mudghah means “chewed substance.” If one were to take a piece of gum and chew it in his or her mouth and then compare it with an embryo at the mudghah stage, we would conclude that the embryo at the mudghah stage acquires the appearance of a chewed substance. This is because of the somites at the back of the embryo that “somewhat resemble teethmarks in a chewed substance.”6 (see figures 5 and 6).

When comparing the appearance of an embryo at the mudghah stage with a piece of gum that has been chewed, we find similarity between the two.
A) Drawing of an embryo at the mudghah stage. We can see here the somites at the back of the embryo that look like teeth marks. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 79.)

I first want to bring to attention that evidence #1 and #2 are only a week (maybe) apart in the embryo development stage and ONLY deal up to 2-3 weeks (maybe) from the starting point of conception?? or is the starting point 4 weeks after conception?? I ask this because there is no fetal growth during the first month after conception. The woman's body prepars the body for fetal grow that first month. the second month is when fetal growth occurs... so there's one confusion in this whole thing.
Secondly, in "the statement" I quoted above, it first states that " We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed." There is no evidence by any professors prooving this part of the Quran, but to me, I could see this as first the body of the man, and then the drop as a drop of sperm. And then i could go and make attempts to prove that humans have some of the same chemical compound make-up as chemicals in dirt and that the linguistics of the "drop" aspect can prove how it does lead one to believe that it does deal with sperm. If I did do this, it wouldn't be a sound argument. It wouold be subjective, slanted, and psudo-science.
Also, I feel like only half of the statement is being justified and the other half, the first half, is being ignored... if the Quran states this as part of a whole, don't you think we need to include the whole inorder to prove our statement of Islam is the true religion??
Here's another thing, what does the Quran say about the next 7 months of embryo development? Why does it only focus on the first month OR second month? What is the significance of that? Also, the professor stating that his/her findings may prove the Quran to be " clear to [him/her] that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God.” is an extreamly subjective and off topic statment which makes me wonder why was this even said and if the professor was already Islamic or leans toward Islam in private life or what... these two tiny, incomplete proposes of evidence is not NEARLY enough to hold the whole statement that Islam is now proven to be the religion.

the third sect of evidence
#3:

D) The Quran on the Cerebrum:
God has said in the Quran about one of the evil unbelievers who forbade the Prophet Muhammad from praying at the Kaaba:

No! If he does not stop, We will take him by the naseyah (front of the head), a lying, sinful naseyah (front of the head)! (Quran, 96:15-16)

If we look into the skull at the front of the head, we will find the prefrontal area of the cerebrum (see figure 12). What does physiology tell us about the function of this area? A book entitled Essentials of Anatomy & Physiology says about this area, “The motivation and the foresight to plan and initiate movements occur in the anterior portion of the frontal lobes, the prefrontal area. This is a region of association cortex...”1 Also the book says, “In relation to its involvement in motivation, the prefrontal area is also thought to be the functional center for aggression....”2

Figure 12: Functional regions of the left hemisphere of the cerebral cortex. The prefrontal area is located at the front of the cerebral cortex. (Essentials of Anatomy & Physiology, Seeley and others, p. 210.) (Click on the image to enlarge it.)

Firstly, I've learned (and will prove if asked to) that agression comes from the Medulla Oblongata which is located in teh brain stem...not the front of the brain. Two different staements which both have two different schollarly sources. So, who's right?

This argument that Islam has been proved by science to be THE religion is an unsound argument. There is no substancial evidence, mor enough evidence, nor is the evidence clear enought to uphold this thesis. Sorry, just disecting this argument in a objective and educated way. I find this argument to be bunk.

 

[An-D]

hmmm...a little long than I wanted...

 

[An-D]

The statement:

The Quran, which was revealed fourteen centuries ago, mentioned facts only recently discovered or proven by scientists. This proves without doubt that the Quran must be the literal word of God, revealed by Him to the Prophet Muhammad , and that the Quran was not authored by Muhammad or by any other human being. This also proves that Muhammad is truly a prophet sent by God. ... " We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)... " (Quran, 23:12-14)

There are only three points of evidence given in teh beginning of this thread. And I'm being told that these three points prove, without doubt, that Islam is THE TRUE religion?? Well, then let's look at these three points:
#1:

Literally, the Arabic word alaqah has three meanings: (1) leech, (2) suspended thing, and (3) blood clot. ...In comparing a leech to an embryo in the alaqah stage, we find similarity bet
ween the two2 as we can see in figure 1. Also, the embryo at this stage obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother, similar to the leech, which feeds on the blood of others. ...The second meaning of the word alaqah is “suspended thing.” This is what we can see in figures 2 and 3, the suspension of the embryo, during the alaqah stage, in the womb of the mother. ...The third meaning of the word alaqah is “blood clot.” We find that the external appearance of the embryo and its sacs during the alaqah stage is similar to that of a blood clot. This is due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo during this stage4 (see figure 4). Also during this stage, the blood in the embryo does not circulate until the end of the third week.5 Thus, the embryo at this stage is like a clot of blood.

#2:

The next stage mentioned in the verse is the mudghah stage. The Arabic word mudghah means “chewed substance.” If one were to take a piece of gum and chew it in his or her mouth and then compare it with an embryo at the mudghah stage, we would conclude that the embryo at the mudghah stage acquires the appearance of a chewed substance. This is because of the somites at the back of the embryo that “somewhat resemble teethmarks in a chewed substance.”6 (see figures 5 and 6).

When comparing the appearance of an embryo at the mudghah stage with a piece of gum that has been chewed, we find similarity between the two.
A) Drawing of an embryo at the mudghah stage. We can see here the somites at the back of the embryo that look like teeth marks. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 79.)

I first want to bring to attention that evidence #1 and #2 are only a week (maybe) apart in the embryo development stage and ONLY deal up to 2-3 weeks (maybe) from the starting point of conception?? or is the starting point 4 weeks after conception?? I ask this because there is no fetal growth during the first month after conception. The woman's body prepars the body for fetal grow that first month. the second month is when fetal growth occurs... so there's one confusion in this whole thing.
Secondly, in "the statement" I quoted above, it first states that " We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed." There is no evidence by any professors prooving this part of the Quran, but to me, I could see this as first the body of the man, and then the drop as a drop of sperm. And then i could go and make attempts to prove that humans have some of the same chemical compound make-up as chemicals in dirt and that the linguistics of the "drop" aspect can prove how it does lead one to believe that it does deal with sperm. If I did do this, it wouldn't be a sound argument. It wouold be subjective, slanted, and psudo-science.
Also, I feel like only half of the statement is being justified and the other half, the first half, is being ignored... if the Quran states this as part of a whole, don't you think we need to include the whole inorder to prove our statement of Islam is the true religion??
Here's another thing, what does the Quran say about the next 7 months of embryo development? Why does it only focus on the first month OR second month? What is the significance of that? Also, the professor stating that his/her findings may prove the Quran to be " clear to [him/her] that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God.” is an extreamly subjective and off topic statment which makes me wonder why was this even said and if the professor was already Islamic or leans toward Islam in private life or what... these two tiny, incomplete proposes of evidence is not NEARLY enough to hold the whole statement that Islam is now proven to be the religion.

the third sect of evidence
#3:

D) The Quran on the Cerebrum:
God has said in the Quran about one of the evil unbelievers who forbade the Prophet Muhammad from praying at the Kaaba:

No! If he does not stop, We will take him by the naseyah (front of the head), a lying, sinful naseyah (front of the head)! (Quran, 96:15-16)

If we look into the skull at the front of the head, we will find the prefrontal area of the cerebrum (see figure 12). What does physiology tell us about the function of this area? A book entitled Essentials of Anatomy & Physiology says about this area, “The motivation and the foresight to plan and initiate movements occur in the anterior portion of the frontal lobes, the prefrontal area. This is a region of association cortex...”1 Also the book says, “In relation to its involvement in motivation, the prefrontal area is also thought to be the functional center for aggression....”2

Figure 12: Functional regions of the left hemisphere of the cerebral cortex. The prefrontal area is located at the front of the cerebral cortex. (Essentials of Anatomy & Physiology, Seeley and others, p. 210.) (Click on the image to enlarge it.)

Firstly, I've learned (and will prove if asked to) that agression comes from the Medulla Oblongata which is located in teh brain stem...not the front of the brain. Two different staements which both have two different schollarly sources. So, who's right?

This argument that Islam has been proved by science to be THE religion is an unsound argument. There is no substancial evidence, mor enough evidence, nor is the evidence clear enought to uphold this thesis. Sorry, just disecting this argument in a objective and educated way. I find this argument to be bunk.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

MM - do you have any idea what a blood clot is? In short, it's what's formed when blood coagulates...

From Medline's online dictionary:

Main Entry: 1clot
Pronunciation: klät
Function: noun
: a coagulated mass produced by clotting of blood

Main Entry: co·ag·u·lum
Pronunciation: ko-ag-yu-lem
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -u·la /-le /; or -u·lums
: a coagulated mass or substance : [SIZE=-1]CLOT[/SIZE]

Main Entry: co·ag·u·la·tion
Pronunciation: ko-ag-yu-la-shen
Function: noun
1 a : a change to a viscous, jellylike, or solid state; especially : a change from a liquid to a thickened curdlike state not by evaporation but by chemical reaction <the spontaneous coagulation of freshly drawn blood> <the coagulation of milk by rennin> b: the process by which such change of state takes place consisting of the alteration of a soluble substance (as a protein) into an insoluble form or of the flocculation or separation of colloidal or suspended matter
2 : a substance or body formed by coagulation : [SIZE=-1]COAGULUM[/SIZE]
3 : disruption of tissue by physical means (as by application of an electric current) so that denaturation and clumping of protein occur <diathermic coagulation of tissues during surgery to seal bleeding blood vessels> -- see [SIZE=-1]ELECTROCOAGULATION[/SIZE],[SIZE=-1]PHOTOCOAGULATION[/SIZE]
​

little difference between a cut on the arm clotting and what is produced in the womb. the term i used was THICK, coagulated blood. Thick again something a littel bigger than just a simple blood clot.
​

Are you serious? Isn't it common knowledge that Mohammed was illiterate and could not read or write ever during his lifetime? How could he have written the Quran himself? Every historical reference I've seen says the Quran was written down after Muhammed died... show us your evidence to the contrary, please?

That is exactly what i said HE DID NOT WRITE THE QURAN. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SEE. His companions wrote it down for him. I do not understand why you think I think other than this.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Not much difference here:

Clot: Platelets.
Blood: Platelets, White Cells, Red Cells, Blood Plasma (basically)
Egg: Ovum
Zygote: Embryonic stem cells.

Notice that a Zygote is not made of any blood cells (until, eventually, it forms it's own blood).

Consider it served: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=602297

I can cut-n-paste from there if you like.

Blood. Clotted, coagulated, free flowing. Doesn't matter as they are all wrong.

I'm telling you that a cat is not a dog, and you are arguing over whether I said "Beagle" or "Rotweilder".

Negative claim. Point me at the copy of the Quran from Muhammed's life.

You've provided volumnious evidence to my statement in this thread.

Good to have your admission. Thanks.

Do you really want me to cut-n-paste from the other thread? It will take many posts to fit in as it's thousands of characters in length.

Again I'll ask: Is there anyone else here who believes that babies are formed by blood (clotted, coagulated, or otherwise) and therefore not by sperm and egg, or anyone who asserts that either sperm or eggs are composed of coagulated blood?

You still have given no evidence. You gave me a link that supports us not you. YOu just disagree what is your evidence. Your sources you have given none.

 

[JerryL]

little difference between a cut on the arm clotting and what is produced in the womb. the term i used was THICK, coagulated blood. Thick again something a littel bigger than just a simple blood clot.

An ovum is not made of blood. A zygote is not made of blood. A baby is not formed from blood in any form. Not clotted, not coagulated, nothing; it is formed from an egg and a sperm, and the first stages of its life are as embryonic stem cells.

That is exactly what i said HE DID NOT WRITE THE QURAN. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SEE. His companions wrote it down for him. I do not understand why you think I think other than this.

Somewhere between a couple decades and a couple centuries after his death.

You still have given no evidence. You gave me a link that supports us not you. YOu just disagree what is your evidence. Your sources you have given none.

You still have given no evidence. You haven't even a link. You just disagree. What is your evidence? Your sources? You have given none.

 

[painted wolf]

hmm... many native creation stories have the world and all life starting as a blood-clot.
And humans relationship to the animals...

and this is the problem with using science to prove religion... any faith can point out what they were right about. We all got some things right, thats observation.

wa:do

 

[Snowbear]

little difference between a cut on the arm clotting and what is produced in the womb. the term i used was THICK, coagulated blood. Thick again something a littel bigger than just a simple blood clot.​

You're wrong again... a clot is a clot is a clot... whether it's a liver sized clot lying on the floor, a wound clotted on the arm or a thrombus in your heart... it's a blood clot. All these forms of clot come about the same way. An embryo does not, in any way shape or form, come from any kind of blood clot or coagulation of blood.

Am I a bigot for saying so? If that's what you and your cronies want to think, that's your business.

If you want to teach me what's really the 'truth' about the Quran, the so-called 'scientific evidence' and 'historical proof,' neither of which hold even the smallest drops of water, you guys are spouting isn't going to cut for this misguided, bigoted unbelieving infidel.
​

 

[JerryL]

and this is the problem with using science to prove religion... any faith can point out what they were right about. We all got some things right, thats observation.

The other problem is, of course, that every religion seems to have wrong-facts.

I suspect this has more than a little to do with every major religion interested in the origin of man and the universe, but predating the sciece that determined what that origin was. As such, the guesses of priests were not actually accurate. If, in fact, a God wanted to place some clear, consise, and indesputeably unknowable facts in a bok it would be pretty simple.

I could put down the speed of gravity for example, or the weight of Venus. I could give dimensions for a celestial body. It would be trivial, in point of fact, to put down any number of specific claims which could be established by ever more elaborate technologies thereby consistantly revalidating my claim.

"For a given object, the rate of movement through time occurs relative to the speed of said object through space".

That would have been unknowable and untestable by Muhammed, and verified easily by us.

Were I a god trying to prove myself over an extended time, I'd have a "claims that prove who I am" section with any number of these... or (considering that I am all powerful), I'd simply appear to everyone indiviually and say "hey! I'm God"

 

[Ibn Al Hyderabadee]

Actually, everything I can find agrees that it was ont written until well after Muhammed's death. You assertion that "this point is not argued" is not only disprovable, but is so easily dsprovable as to discredit your entire post as lacking even the pretext of reasearch.

Im tlakign about respected schoalrs of islamic studies, not bigoted ones with agendas. If we were to include everyone into the pool of opinions, some have even rejeced the existence of the Prophet Muhammad (Sal Allahu Alayhi wa Sallam). I admit, I shouldve clarified this point more.

There are, in fact, some who assert that the Quran was not written until several hundred years after Muhammed's death, citing the complete lack of a surviving manuscript older than about 700AD.

Do you even know when the Prophet (Sal Allahu ALayhi Wa Sallam ) lived???? according to you you said, and I quote:

"several hundred years after Muhammed's death"

then you say, again i quote:

"lack of a surviving manuscript older than about 700AD"

did the Prophet Muhammad (May Allah's Peace be upon him) live at the same time as Jesus (May Allah's Peace be upon him)??? What history books are you reading, or are you pulling things out your but again???

This is utter ignorance, from the looks of it i think you just searched "oldest Quran" and got some date put it here. Here is an image of the Quran used by the third Caliph - Uthman who died 656 AD - which is within 22 years of the Death of the Prophet (May Allah's Peace be upon him), it is found in Uzbekistan's Religious Historical Museum from what i can remmeber last, but it is often on tour to different museums in the Muslim world-

Cant post image I have less than 15 posts on here​

Is this sufficient evidence or should I give a bit more analysis. You knwo what I will, if you turn to one of the verses in thsi Qurna you will see a drop of blood on it and it was reported that this is the drop of blood that feel on the quran right before uthman passed away whiel reading it. Thereis also a chain of people goign back to Uthman that shows who got possession of it form who and who form who goign back to Uthman. I dont think any other history has been preserved in a better way.​

 

[Ibn Al Hyderabadee]

Please support this claim. Where are these things stored now?

This doesn't really even make sense. Certainly there was access to better materials that "leaves and shoulder bones"... like "paper".

Okay besides the Quran as shown above, this the letters I was referring to that they wrote on to send to the emperors surrounding them, I am not providing the leaves and shoulder bones as you seem to think they shoudlve used paper, they did and I mentioned this earlier -

Cant post image, I have less than 15 posts
​

This is the letter sent to the King of the Coptic Christians in Egypt, which BTW you should research deeply yourself and find the relationship between the "ankh" and cross.

The reason for using shoulder bones and leaves and rocks was simple, the people wanted to be the first to write down the revelation as it came.

I agree that the compilation of the Quran was not done during the time of the Prophet (May Allah's Peace be uponhim) but the Quran was written, it was put into order after his death according to the way he recited it.

Any questions??

 

[Ibn Al Hyderabadee]

you can email me at syeddanishhasan at gmail dot com to recieve the images....

i will post them here once I have 15 posts