Pleasure and Joy

[genkaus]

Sorry! From now on, I’ll keep the font size normal.

If you think my arguments are stupid then you should prove them stupid instead of using mere vocalization. Without appropriate reasoning, your statement is in fact no more than a Hullabaloo.

I don't see why I can't do both.

Can you name couple of eminent biologists who agreed that genetic coding of an ape DNA could evolve into human DNA by means of evolution?

If you think answer is yes then show us, how many ape genes out of 10 to the power 100 evolve into human DNA at average and what time factor involved in this process?

Read up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

If freedom of speech means humiliating others then why you feel angry when someone compares your beloved ones with disgusting things?

I don't - especially if the comparison is untrue.

Nope! You are wrong. They are Conspiratorial, not Coward.

Nope! I am right. Suppressing free-speech to appease Islamic extremists is cowardice.

Is that the reason why poor Afghans receiving western bombs over their heads since last 40 years in their own homes?

That's one of the reasons.

It is near to impossible for someone to memorize a book in foreign language without knowing that language especially when the text that has discrepancies in it. However, this glory goes to Quran exclusively. There are approximately 30,000,000 Hafiz Quran in the world today. Hafiz Quran are those people who memorize complete Quran from beginning to end and word by word. These hafiz Quran belongs to all cultures, nations, race, colour and language. Around 70% of these hafiz Quran are those people who don’t know Arabic as language.

That's not impossible at all. People have memorized and translated books of foreign language with discrepancies in it. Quran is no different in that respect.

First point, am I asking you to read Quran?

Second, if you don’t know Quran then how comes you are criticizing it? Perhaps, you are one of those who follow blind faith. Possibly, it’s your dire desire to condemn Quran by hook or by crook and for this reason you agree with everything which goes against Quran whether true or false.

First point, you are not giving me any reason to.

Second, I do know Quran and I don't need to know its contents to know what it is. I have made no secret of my desire to condemn Quran and the I have made no secret of the fact that I condemn it because it is bullshit. I don't need to know about any true parts if my knowledge of the false parts is sufficient.

Wikiislam is managed by Crooks, whose job is to distort everything related to Islam. Better, you search Wikipedia, which is, if not saying the truth then at least, not distorting it as well. For its honest job, Wikipedia is famous worldwide and people don’t hesitate giving their financial donations in acknowledgement to its fabulous services to humanity.

Funny you should say that - Wikipedia agrees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Mo...e_Qur.27an

Can you validate your statement true through proper references and by presenting the writings of Greeks and Indians who were living before the invention of microscope?

Sure:

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/History_of_Embryology

Word Nutfa came in Quran no less than 11 times. Nutfa means minute quantity of liquid.

Verily We created Man from minute quantity of (Nutfah) a drop of mingled fluid, in order to try him: So We gave him (the gifts), of Hearing and Sight
Al Insaan (76)
-Verse 2-

Nutfa can refer to male and female Gemmates after they form the Zygote. It yet remains a Nutfa “a minute quantity of liquid”.

It can also refer to the spermatic fluid, which contains several secretions from various glands like the testis, which contain spermatozoon it also includes the secretion from seminal vesicle, the seminal fluid that is a reservoir of spermatozoon but does not contain the fertilizing agent.

In addition, it refers to secretion of prostatic gland, which gives the creamy texture, and the characteristic odour to the sperm as well as gland attached to urinary track, which gives specific texture of mucus to the sperm.

Quran refer “minute quantity of mingled fluid”, which is male and female gemmates surrounded by these fluids, which are responsible for the birth of a human being.

Quran tells about different stages of embryology.

Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay);
Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed;
Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed (leech like) blood;
Then of that clot We made a (chewed like) lump;
Then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh;
Then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!
Al Mu'minuun (23)
-Verses 12 to 14-

“Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed;”

Today Embryology tells us that the embryo is protected posteriorly by the backbone and the posterior muscles of mother and of course by the anti-abdominal wall, the womb’s wall, and amniocordionic membrane.

“Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed (leech like) blood;”

Alaqa in Arabic has three meanings

a. Something which clings
b. A leech like substance
c. Blood clot

Under the hood of embryology all three meanings fits perfectly well in the description. Embryo in the initial stage clings to the uterine wall of the mother. It looks like a leech and behaves like a leech, which is a bloodsucker. It derives the blood supply and the nutrition from the mother. At this stage if an abortion takes place the Conceptus looks like a blood clot. This is the beauty of Quran that in one word “Alaqa” it implies all three meanings and all three meanings are in perfect harmony with embryological interpretation of initial stages of embryo.

“Then of that clot (Alaqa) We made a (chewed like) lump;”

In Arabic “Mudgha” means Chewed like lump.

Dr. Keith Moore took a plaster seal and bit it with his teeth. He was astonished that the teeth marks resembled to somite from which develop the spinal column.

“Then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh;”
“Then we developed out of it another creature.”

What does Quran means by “another (new) creature”?

In the initial embryological stages of development, human embryo is similar to other animals’ embryo. It is only at this stage that the particular appearance of human being appears. At this stage appear the head, the hands and the feet.

And what does all this blather supposed to signify?

The quranic verses quoted here do not imply any of the embryological knowledge, anymore than other religious texts did.

When Dr. Keith Moore went through the translations of different verses of Quran he said that most of the things which Quran speaks are matching with the latest discoveries in the field of embryology. However, there are few things which I can’t say are right or wrong as I don’t have sufficient knowledge about that. One such verse was:

Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created-
Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood (a leech like substance):
Al 'Alaq (96)
-Verses 1 & 2-

Dr. Keith Moore said he don’t know whether the embryo looks like a leech or not. So in his laboratory he examined whether the embryo in its early stages looks like leech or not by comparing it with the photograph of a leech.

To his astonishment, he found exact resemblance between the appearances of embryo and of leech.

Regarding the 80 question that were formulated based on Quranic verses and tradition of Prophet of Mohammad, Dr. Keith Moore said that if these questions were asked 30 years back, no one could have answered them as Embryology is somewhat a new field in medical science.

In his book “The Developing Human”, third edition he has incorporated new discoveries that he discovered through the clues given in Quran for which he got an award for writing a best medical book in that year. This book afterwards translated into several different languages of the world.

Those were the facts based on which professor Keith Moore proclaimed that he has no objection that Prophet Mohammad was the messenger of God and Quran is the Word of God.

A connection with Royal Saudi Family is nothing more than an attempt came out of desperation.

Not really. His statements fail on their own merit. Specifically his statements about the historical human knowledge about embryology. The Saudi Family connection simply proves the motive for lying.

As for your reference of his book, here's an interesting read about it:
http://rationalislam.blogspot.in/2012/03...ft-to.html

Please give us the reference material from the work of anyone who before the invention of microscope had explained the stages of human evolution similar to what Quran had given and modern embryology had confirmed.

Already have.

When professor Marshal Johnson (head of anatomy department, in the Denial Institute, in Thomas Jefferson hospital, Philadelphia USA) was asked to comment on these verses he said it is possible that Prophet Mohammad had a microscope and he had observed all these stages. At that, when he was reminded that microscope was not there 1400 years ago. He laughed loudly and said, “Yes, I know that”, he continued “I have seen the first microscope myself and it hardly enlarge 10 times”. He proclaimed that the source of description of these stages in Quran should only be a divine one.

Glad you brought this up:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses...chap06.htm

BURQA is not a prerequisite to behave like those about whom Bible says:

… they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
(Matt 13:13 [KJV])

You just don't get a metaphor, do you?

Many times, I had referred to Quran as a book of signs. Quran gives these signs in such a manner that a layman and scholar both can apprehend the meanings according to the level of their intellects. In both cases of comprehension, these meanings remarkably suffice the same purpose.

Before the discovery that Francis Gold had made, no one had any idea why Quran gave the example of fingertips. Now we can understand the purpose behind that example. It is because although all fingertips are more or less similar in their physical appearances but they are unique for every individual person in terms of signatures they carry. Allah is saying not only He is proficient enough in reassembling the bones but also He is in full command to recreate the fingerprint in their exact fashion as He had created them first time.

This is the beauty of Quran that alongside positing its message in an easy and explicable manner, it gives clues on facts, which are not yet known to us, but in reality, they are there.

Previously, I had elucidated that what looks ambiguous in Quran is in fact not ambiguous. It is our acquired knowledge that has not reached the level at which we can understand most of the clues that Quran is giving beside the formal meanings these clues depict. If Quran is giving some specific example, it is to draw our attention toward to some reality and asking us to ponder and try to reach a higher level of understanding. As Quran is the book of commandments, it doesn’t go into intricate details related to science, philosophy, history, etc.

What's the name of that other guy who ran the same scam? No, wait, that's the same scam used by every religion in existence.

"Our holy book is not only compatible with current scientific discoveries, it already predicts all scientfic knowledge in ambiguous and non-specific terms. If you look at this ambiguous phrase here, you can draw a convoluted conclusion from it that fully agrees with science."

Sorry, that doesn't work. If your Quran had knowledge of finger-prints, then they would've been discovered way before Sir Francis.

They are not giving these arguments in debates and in their written works, because they know these allegations have intentional purpose to distract general people from Quran and those allegations are not necessarily reputable facts. They don’t want that people who have proper knowledge of Quran would laugh at their cheap shots.

No, they are not giving these arguments in their debates and written works because they know that these facts are already out there for people to find from other sources and they don't want to waste time repeating the same thing.

You can find their debates on YouTube. Those debates might be boring for you as in them two theists are defending their specific ways they perceive and believe in God and you do not believe in the presence of that God.

Then go ahead and use that youtube video to disprove the allegations made.

Arguments against Quran are not established facts on which everyone can unequivocally agree. You cannot experience the experience of others as your own experience. Merely on the words of others, you are trying to build your conclusions, which in itself is an unjust act. Perhaps people, whom you are following, have unwise intentions against Quran. If you are really striving to know the truth, then there is no way other than putting your personal effort in the research and learning. Else, your verdicts against Quran based on other people’s opinions (which are not established facts) are no more than notorious act of a hypocrite.

Except those people have given evidence for their claims - which changes their claims from opinions to facts. Unequivocal agreement is not required for establishing facts - evidence is. And that is available in abundance.

Quote

We shall willingly grant that bad faith is a lie to oneself, on condition that we distinguish the lie to oneself from lying in general. Lying is a negative attitude, we will agree to that. But this negation does not bear on consciousness itself; it aims only in transcendent. The essence of the lie implies in fact that the liar actually is in complete possession of the truth, which he is hiding. A man does not lie about what he is ignorant of; he does not lie when he spreads an error of which he himself is the dupe; he does not lie when he is mistaken. The ideal description of the liar would be a cynical consciousness, affirming truth within himself, denying it in his words, and denying that negation as such.

Unquote

Page 48
Being and Nothingness
Jean-Paul Sartre

Relevance?

You are listening what you desire to listen.
All those allegations are based on misquotes, quotations out of context and on the implications of false synonyms to the words. The authors had also taken advantage on general people’s lack of knowledge on Quran and Arabic Language while framing those allegations.

Then it should be easy for you to disprove each and everyone of them. Go ahead and do so.

Let me give you one example:

Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."
Al Kahfi (18)
-Verse 86-

The objection here is that sun setting in a spring of murky water is unscientific.

The Arabic word used here is “VAJADA” means, “it appeared to”. Allah is describing what appeared to Zul-Qarnain.

The Arabic word Maghrib (West) can be used for time as well as for place. When we say sunset at 7pm it means time but if I say sunset in the west then it means place.

Therefore, “when he reached the setting of the sun” means he reached at the time of sunset and sunset appeared to be in spring of murky water.

If someone ague no it means sun was factually setting in murky water then lets analyses it further.

We in our everyday life use the words sunrise and sunset. Is scientifically sun is rising or is it setting? Sure not. Yet you are reading every day in the newspapers “sunrise at 7 AM” and “sunset at 6 PM” so does that means all the newspaper around the world are wrong because they are unscientific? Sure not.

Hence, Al Kahfi (18)-Verse 86- is not in contradiction to the established science it is the way how people speak in generalised form based on general natural appearances of natural phenomenon.

So, basically, Quran makes an ambiguous statement which can be interpreted as "he reached the place of sun setting and it appeared to set in murky water" (a popular local myth of the time) or as "at the time of sunset, it appeared that sun was setting in murky water" - and you can say without any doubt that it actually meant the latter and not the former. Yeah, not buying it. At best, it would establish inconclusive evidence. Go on to the rest then.

It is a sign of an obstinate character to argue on things without giving proper reasons. It is something as if you are saying, “I agree with all those allegations and I don’t care whether they are true or false”

No, what I am saying is that there are hundreds of factual reasons why Quran is wrong. Expecting each debater to list them all - or even know them all - is not reasonable. So, people not using those arguments says absolutely nothing about their validity.

You have crushed me! Bravo!