I guess semen from the backbone isn't false, afterall? [ISLAM]

iGetWood
iGetWood's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2011-12-28
User is offlineOffline
I guess semen from the backbone isn't false, afterall? [ISLAM]

http://www.understanding-islam.com/q-and-a/miscellaneous-issues/does-semen-emanate-from-between-the-ribs-and-the-back-al-taariq-86...

Interesting, makes it seem there might be a little credibility to Islam.

If the verse really is true, how would you react?


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3205
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Your link is dead... here is

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Semen is generated by the

 

 

prostate gland and the seminal vesicles. Trying to rope the abdominal aorta into the equation to support the Koran's lack of medical comprehension is an exercise in motivated reasoning. The verse is a meaningless repetition of Hippocrates misapprehensions that date all the way back to 500BCE. The first person to say anything sensible about blood flow was William Harvey in 1628. The authors of the Koran were oblivious to the nature of biological life. Muhammad was clearly better at using his gear than understanding it, if his alleged reports be true.  

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

prostate gland and the seminal vesicles. Trying to rope the abdominal aorta into the equation to support the Koran's lack of medical comprehension is an exercise in motivated reasoning. The verse is a meaningless repetition of Hippocrates misapprehensions that date all the way back to 500BCE. The first person to say anything sensible about blood flow was William Harvey in 1628. The authors of the Koran were oblivious to the nature of biological life. Muhammad was clearly better at using his gear than understanding it, if his alleged reports be true.  

 

 

Making an observation does not mean you understand what you are observing. Both the Koran and Bible talk about "mountains moving", now since earthquakes have always existed, this is hardly a revelation, but both Christians and Muslims have tried to claim those ambiguous words to mean that the writers knew about plate tectonics.

This is no different. I also had a Muslim quote a verse "Congealed blood" as Muhammad knowing what a period was and therefor Allah picks the sex of the baby.

Humans have always observed periods because females will have them, but no one, no religion and no person back then knew one lick about the biological or scientific medical reality of what they were observing.

Holy books are not science textbooks and religions are not scientific institutions.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Damn... why does someone

Damn... why does someone else take all the cool usernames. "iGetWood", "Haywoodja Blaumie", etc?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)