ChatterBank1 min ago
The visually-challenged God
76 Answers
From the Koran: "When forty-two nights have passed over the "drops" Allah sends an angel to it' who shapes it and makes its ears, eyes, skin, flesh and bones. Then he says, 0! Lord, is it male or female? and your Lord decides and the angel records it".
So an angel shapes the human foetus, and Allah decides its gender, so why don't either of them notice when a serious error occurs in the handiwork, resulting in a severely handicapped child, conjoined twins, or even an hermaphrodite?
Maybe God's mislaid his glasses.
So an angel shapes the human foetus, and Allah decides its gender, so why don't either of them notice when a serious error occurs in the handiwork, resulting in a severely handicapped child, conjoined twins, or even an hermaphrodite?
Maybe God's mislaid his glasses.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
mibn2cwus //I hope you don't mind if I quote you on that (again) sometime in future?//
Why would anyone mind that being quoted? In science the facts stand supreme. A theory that is matches the facts is considered credible but it does not automatically enhance the credibility of other hypotheses made by the author.
The only people I see trying to use authorship of accepted theories as evidence of for their world view are the theists when they support the likes of Newton's theology on the basis of his scientific work.
Unlike religion, science is not a personality cult no matter how famous the accepted work by the author.
Why would anyone mind that being quoted? In science the facts stand supreme. A theory that is matches the facts is considered credible but it does not automatically enhance the credibility of other hypotheses made by the author.
The only people I see trying to use authorship of accepted theories as evidence of for their world view are the theists when they support the likes of Newton's theology on the basis of his scientific work.
Unlike religion, science is not a personality cult no matter how famous the accepted work by the author.
beso, Certain posters have occasioned to reference verses from their chosen text in an apparent attempt to validate their position on certain issues whilst seemingly oblivious to the possibility that one might question the validity of what those texts imply as well as the authority and credibility of an author whose words could just as easily if not more likely been inspired by the devil as by his alleged creator. But then I suppose not everyone can derive the same strength of conviction as they seem to based solely on the ability of carefully selected albeit virtually meaningless phrases to generate a warm and fuzzy feeling inside.
Perhaps in isolating the quote from its context, the full thrust of the intended meaning in your case is not fully retained. Nevertheless, I submit the statement quoted stands on its own merit and applies universally in any case, while in the case of ‘holy’ inspired texts the very existence of the alleged author as well as the veracity and motives of corroborating witnesses should both be brought into question. Given the scenario described, if I might take the liberty to rephrase your quote with a slight modification as follows:
“The existence of a book does not add credence to the views of its <alleged> author nor does it validate their world-view.” - (mibn2cweus)
In any case and with either version, one might take pause to reconsider the viability of using verses taken from religious texts as a means to bolster their position in situations where those whom they are attempting to persuade might not be prepared to accept such assertions as something any more credible than, the gospel ‘truth’ . . . if you get my drift?
Perhaps in isolating the quote from its context, the full thrust of the intended meaning in your case is not fully retained. Nevertheless, I submit the statement quoted stands on its own merit and applies universally in any case, while in the case of ‘holy’ inspired texts the very existence of the alleged author as well as the veracity and motives of corroborating witnesses should both be brought into question. Given the scenario described, if I might take the liberty to rephrase your quote with a slight modification as follows:
“The existence of a book does not add credence to the views of its <alleged> author nor does it validate their world-view.” - (mibn2cweus)
In any case and with either version, one might take pause to reconsider the viability of using verses taken from religious texts as a means to bolster their position in situations where those whom they are attempting to persuade might not be prepared to accept such assertions as something any more credible than, the gospel ‘truth’ . . . if you get my drift?
/////In any case and with either version, one might take pause to reconsider the viability of using verses taken from religious texts as a means to bolster their position in situations where those whom they are attempting to persuade might not be prepared to accept such assertions as something any more credible than, the gospel ‘truth’ . . . if you get my drift?/////
These same people do not accept credibility of the most credible scientists either when it does not suit them. And that is the reason after a while I always stop posting because I know we would not get anywhere with “FEW” usual suspects and would only be waste of time and effort. I have learnt that here so even in that case I refer to few verses from Quran chanpter 2.
6. As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.
7. Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).
8. Of the people there are some who say: "We believe in Allah and the Last Day;" but they do not (really) believe.
9. Fain would they deceive Allah and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves, and realise (it) not!
10. In their hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease: And grievous is the penalty they (incur), because they are false (to themselves).
11. When it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "Why, we only Want to make peace!"
12. Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realise (it) not.
13. When it is said to them: "Believe as the others believe:" They say: "Shall we believe as the fools believe?" Nay, of a surety they are the fools, but they do not know.
14. When they meet those who believe, they say: "We believe;" but when they are alone with their evil ones, they say: "We are really with you: We (were) only jesting."
15. Allah will throw back their mockery on them, and give them rope in their trespasses; so they will wander like blind ones (To and fro).
16. These are they who have bartered Guidance for error: But their traffic is profitless, and they have lost true direction,
17. Their similitude is that of a man who kindled a fire; when it lighted all around him, Allah took away their light and left them in utter darkness. So they could not see.
18. Deaf, dumb, and blind, they will not return (to the path).
These same people do not accept credibility of the most credible scientists either when it does not suit them. And that is the reason after a while I always stop posting because I know we would not get anywhere with “FEW” usual suspects and would only be waste of time and effort. I have learnt that here so even in that case I refer to few verses from Quran chanpter 2.
6. As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.
7. Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).
8. Of the people there are some who say: "We believe in Allah and the Last Day;" but they do not (really) believe.
9. Fain would they deceive Allah and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves, and realise (it) not!
10. In their hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease: And grievous is the penalty they (incur), because they are false (to themselves).
11. When it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "Why, we only Want to make peace!"
12. Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realise (it) not.
13. When it is said to them: "Believe as the others believe:" They say: "Shall we believe as the fools believe?" Nay, of a surety they are the fools, but they do not know.
14. When they meet those who believe, they say: "We believe;" but when they are alone with their evil ones, they say: "We are really with you: We (were) only jesting."
15. Allah will throw back their mockery on them, and give them rope in their trespasses; so they will wander like blind ones (To and fro).
16. These are they who have bartered Guidance for error: But their traffic is profitless, and they have lost true direction,
17. Their similitude is that of a man who kindled a fire; when it lighted all around him, Allah took away their light and left them in utter darkness. So they could not see.
18. Deaf, dumb, and blind, they will not return (to the path).
^^^There^^^ you go! Thanks for providing that stunning example that proves my point, Keyplus.
What we are asked to believe is all predicated on faith and those who reject faith as a means to obtain knowledge are stricken deaf, dumb and blind by the very one who insists on our believing? And the prescription for those who are asserted to have lost 'the way' is to make them blinder still? Lord have mercy!
Oopsy daisy, there I go trying to derive some sense where none exists from those who have obviously abandoned the quest. Where's my rose coloured glasses?!
What we are asked to believe is all predicated on faith and those who reject faith as a means to obtain knowledge are stricken deaf, dumb and blind by the very one who insists on our believing? And the prescription for those who are asserted to have lost 'the way' is to make them blinder still? Lord have mercy!
Oopsy daisy, there I go trying to derive some sense where none exists from those who have obviously abandoned the quest. Where's my rose coloured glasses?!
Keyplus, //These same people do not accept credibility of the most credible scientists either when it does not suit them.//
What credible scientists? And please don't wheel out your usual 40 year-old video of Keith Moore earning his pay because that one's been done to death here - literally!
Got any other credible scientists to offer?
What credible scientists? And please don't wheel out your usual 40 year-old video of Keith Moore earning his pay because that one's been done to death here - literally!
Got any other credible scientists to offer?
-- answer removed --
Yikes! Looks like I need to concentrate a bit more on differentiating between the author and those who happen to agree with what they wrote. :o/
Not that I haven't enjoyed responding to both. Thanks for clearing that up for me, umm . . . birdie! :o)
(Perhaps some of my other AB friends can now better appreciate why I insist on having procedures in place and following them to the letter) :o/
Not that I haven't enjoyed responding to both. Thanks for clearing that up for me, umm . . . birdie! :o)
(Perhaps some of my other AB friends can now better appreciate why I insist on having procedures in place and following them to the letter) :o/
//// What credible scientists? And please don't wheel out your usual 40 year-old video of Keith Moore earning his pay because that one's been done to death here - literally!///
So you would not mind quoting 4000 years old Greek philosophies when it suits you and have declared “Pay earning” about someone who is still considered pioneer in embryology. His books are still being taught in medical colleges so please write to them with your views and ask them to stop teaching his work. But then there are more people apart from Keith Moore. But of course they were all earning their pay according to you. Proved my pint with 100% accuracy. Thanks for that Naomi (let’s see if now she says, you are welcome).
Mibn2cweus – And where exactly in those verses and anywhere in Quran it is said that people should not seek knowledge. If you can’t find then I am sure your other friends here should be happy to help.
So you would not mind quoting 4000 years old Greek philosophies when it suits you and have declared “Pay earning” about someone who is still considered pioneer in embryology. His books are still being taught in medical colleges so please write to them with your views and ask them to stop teaching his work. But then there are more people apart from Keith Moore. But of course they were all earning their pay according to you. Proved my pint with 100% accuracy. Thanks for that Naomi (let’s see if now she says, you are welcome).
Mibn2cweus – And where exactly in those verses and anywhere in Quran it is said that people should not seek knowledge. If you can’t find then I am sure your other friends here should be happy to help.
//Mibn2cweus – And where exactly in those verses and anywhere in Quran it is said that people should not seek knowledge.//
I'd like to help you out there keyplus, but as you can clearly see in the first two verses listed above, I've been struck blind by Allah for my refusal to abandon reason and rely solely on faith to discriminate between what I know and what I've been told to believe. But if you're unable to read what you yourself have written, perhaps it is the faithful who are in need of a visit to the optometrist.
I'd like to help you out there keyplus, but as you can clearly see in the first two verses listed above, I've been struck blind by Allah for my refusal to abandon reason and rely solely on faith to discriminate between what I know and what I've been told to believe. But if you're unable to read what you yourself have written, perhaps it is the faithful who are in need of a visit to the optometrist.
Keyplus, I don't know what point you think you've proven, but how did I know you were going to wheel out the same old rubbish? Gosh! I must be psychic! Yes, his books are still taught in medical colleges. However, sadly for you (and for some unfortunate Islamic medical students) the books used in the west aren't the same as those used in some Muslim countries - and for very obvious reasons.
I've grabbed this quickly from here: http://www.answering-...t-is-truth/chap03.htm .... but I think it might do well enough to get the point across - that's of course if you're listening.
//Professor Moore's book The Developing Human, 3rd edition, has two different editions: the standard edition which is used in the west, and the "Islamic" edition which is used in some Muslim colleges. Comparing the two editions, it seems that not even Prof. Moore is sufficiently convinced by the scientific "facts" in the Qu'ran to risk his reputation as a prominent academic in the Western world. The Islamic edition (also in the 3rd edition) of his textbook is not even available in the British Library, nor can it be found in the US Library of Congress, nor in medical libraries in Western countries, presumably because he is aware that not only do the Islamic contributions to it contradict known science, but they also contradict what he himself has written in the standard version of his textbook. Perhaps Prof. Moore's desire to sell his textbooks overseas was greater than his desire to seek the scientific truth?//
If you want to read the rest, be my guest. It talks about the Greeks, and the errors Mohammed copied from them, so it should interest you.
Keyplus, Keith Moore was in the pay of the Saudis when he made that pathetic film 40 years ago. Can you imagine the reaction if he'd have told the truth that the science of the Koran is inaccurate? I suspect he may well have forfeited his head for his trouble! Fortunately, you still have yours, so why not try using it for once? Does it never occur to you to ask why the world's academics don't extol the virtues of the Koran for its masterful scientific insight? Doesn't that strike you as odd? Just a thought - which of course, you are most welcome to. ;o)
Oh, and can we now please say goodbye once and for all to the unfortunate Professor Moore?! Thank you.
Mibs, bless you my son. :o)
I've grabbed this quickly from here: http://www.answering-...t-is-truth/chap03.htm .... but I think it might do well enough to get the point across - that's of course if you're listening.
//Professor Moore's book The Developing Human, 3rd edition, has two different editions: the standard edition which is used in the west, and the "Islamic" edition which is used in some Muslim colleges. Comparing the two editions, it seems that not even Prof. Moore is sufficiently convinced by the scientific "facts" in the Qu'ran to risk his reputation as a prominent academic in the Western world. The Islamic edition (also in the 3rd edition) of his textbook is not even available in the British Library, nor can it be found in the US Library of Congress, nor in medical libraries in Western countries, presumably because he is aware that not only do the Islamic contributions to it contradict known science, but they also contradict what he himself has written in the standard version of his textbook. Perhaps Prof. Moore's desire to sell his textbooks overseas was greater than his desire to seek the scientific truth?//
If you want to read the rest, be my guest. It talks about the Greeks, and the errors Mohammed copied from them, so it should interest you.
Keyplus, Keith Moore was in the pay of the Saudis when he made that pathetic film 40 years ago. Can you imagine the reaction if he'd have told the truth that the science of the Koran is inaccurate? I suspect he may well have forfeited his head for his trouble! Fortunately, you still have yours, so why not try using it for once? Does it never occur to you to ask why the world's academics don't extol the virtues of the Koran for its masterful scientific insight? Doesn't that strike you as odd? Just a thought - which of course, you are most welcome to. ;o)
Oh, and can we now please say goodbye once and for all to the unfortunate Professor Moore?! Thank you.
Mibs, bless you my son. :o)
Naomi – You think that I have never read that from the website you have got that from? The simplest reason that why the books with Muslim perspective are not taught in the medical colleges in the West is that its compatibility has nothing to do directly with medical teachings. Students are only interested in how an embryo develops and are not interested that Quran talks about it.
In response to your link I can give another link,
http://www.answering-...nadeem_embryology.htm
In response to your claim that Muhammad (pbuh) copied it from Greeks (along with errors). So at least you are confirming that there were errors in what Greeks believed in. As for allegation of copying there are so many common sense reasons that Muhammad (pbuh) could not have copied it from Greeks even if he had wanted to. Then Greeks were not the only one who had talked about embryo before Muhammad (or Quran) and let me know if you would be interested and I would give you a complete detailed comparisons. Finally again you have proved my point that if you do not agree with something you would even blame reputable people for being on Payroll, which simply means that they “MANIPULATED” their knowledge. Can we believe that it happens to the scientists “YOU” believe in or only the ones you do not agree with? Then you do accept that his work is being taught in Western medical colleges. Don’t you think that his credibility must have been questioned after books with Islamic perspective if they know that it was all rubbish and most importantly this person can be bought? But to be honest to think about all that you need common sense.
In response to your link I can give another link,
http://www.answering-...nadeem_embryology.htm
In response to your claim that Muhammad (pbuh) copied it from Greeks (along with errors). So at least you are confirming that there were errors in what Greeks believed in. As for allegation of copying there are so many common sense reasons that Muhammad (pbuh) could not have copied it from Greeks even if he had wanted to. Then Greeks were not the only one who had talked about embryo before Muhammad (or Quran) and let me know if you would be interested and I would give you a complete detailed comparisons. Finally again you have proved my point that if you do not agree with something you would even blame reputable people for being on Payroll, which simply means that they “MANIPULATED” their knowledge. Can we believe that it happens to the scientists “YOU” believe in or only the ones you do not agree with? Then you do accept that his work is being taught in Western medical colleges. Don’t you think that his credibility must have been questioned after books with Islamic perspective if they know that it was all rubbish and most importantly this person can be bought? But to be honest to think about all that you need common sense.
Keyplus, //So at least you are confirming that there were errors in what Greeks believed in.//
I've never denied it - in fact I've pointed one or two of their errors (that also mysteriously appear in the Koran) out to you. However, your comment would rather confirm that you are well aware that the Koran is also in error.
So why aren't the academics of the world lauding the amazing science of the Koran?
I've never denied it - in fact I've pointed one or two of their errors (that also mysteriously appear in the Koran) out to you. However, your comment would rather confirm that you are well aware that the Koran is also in error.
So why aren't the academics of the world lauding the amazing science of the Koran?
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.