YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF AND YOU ARE GOING TO HELL

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF AND YOU ARE GOING TO HELL

Quote:
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Yes I am De'Sha so keep HATTIN ON ME!
Date: Oct 13, 2006 1:05 AM

do u believe in god

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: RATIONAL RESPONSE SQUAD
Date: Oct 12, 2006 10:27 PM

NO. Do you?

Quote:

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Yes I am De'Sha so keep HATTIN ON ME!
Date: Oct 13, 2006 10:02 AM

YES I DO AND I DIDNT UNDERSTAND YOUR PAGE AT FIRST SO I TOOK YOU OF MY FRIENDS LIST AND THE COMMENT U GAVE ME SO WELL GOODBYE AND GODBLESS YOU AND YOUR SOUL CAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO NEED IT IN THE END THATS IS VERY RUDE OF YOU NOT TO BELIEVE IN GOT HE DIED FOR YOUR SINS AND WHAT YOU ARE DOING NO YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF AND YOU ARE GOING TO HELL FOR DOING WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND YOU NEED TO AS GOT TO FORGIVE FOR ALL YOU SINS GOODBYE AND REMEBER JESUS LOVE YOU AMEN!

So you're not going to take the time to research reasons as to why people wouldn't believe? You'll simply believe the lies and bullshit you've been spoon fed by Christians your entire life? Don't you think any real god would be insulted at how poorly you're utilizing the brain he gave you?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Angelic_Atheist
Silver Member
Angelic_Atheist's picture
Posts: 264
Joined: 2006-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Aint that just about the

ROTF
Aint that just about the cutest lack of brain usage you ever did see????

We must favor verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise we leave ourselves vulnerable to those who would obscure the truth.
~ Richard Dawkins


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I think god would be more

I think god would be more ashamed at his followers typing and grammer skills... Maybe if that person just said more sentences out loud, wait then they'd loss brains cells from a lack of oxygen. That would be the last thing they would need.


The_Fragile
The_Fragile's picture
Posts: 102
Joined: 2006-07-16
User is offlineOffline
Quick call Guiness, I think

Quick call Guiness, I think thats the largest run-on sentence I've ever seen.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Seems like the typical

Seems like the typical Christian response - all caps, poor spelling/punctuation, oh yeah, and really ignorant.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
The_Fragile wrote:Quick call

The_Fragile wrote:
Quick call Guiness, I think thats the largest run-on sentence I've ever seen.

Here is the bigger question. Would it even have punctuation if the writer wasn't angry? And if it didn't would it be a sentence?


neon
neon's picture
Posts: 151
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Can they shut off their caps

Can they shut off their caps lock?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Who am I?

Quick, who am I imitating?

"Screw you guys, I'm going home!"

Seriously, do they think that by running away and clapping their hands over their ears they're making a good case for the validity of their belief?

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


The_Fragile
The_Fragile's picture
Posts: 102
Joined: 2006-07-16
User is offlineOffline
This reminds me of a

This reminds me of a sadistic version of my grandmother.


highraven
highraven's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
no proof.....so lets run and

no proof.....so lets run and pretend like we defended it!!! yea we rock we can defend it...by hiding under a rock?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
And Jesus said to the sheep " I shall make you blind and lame, so you may never know the truth"


neon
neon's picture
Posts: 151
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Did you see her profile?

Did you see her profile? Full of swearing, more extremely poor spelling and an attitude that completely destroys any would-be notion of self-superiority she claims from her religion. She brags about God, and then she cusses like a sailor. Gotta love it! :ROTF:

She's angry at total strangers, she's hypersensitive-- yeah, that 'faith' really does you good. Drunk


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Do admins get to look and

Do admins get to look and see who reads the threads? I'm curious if she just buggered off or if she's read the thread and doesn't have the heart to bring the logic to the table.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Send her a note telling her

Send her a note telling her to read it. We can see the ip address of someone looking at a thread (but I dodn't know hers) and if you're logged in, we can see every page you've ever been to. If she has an account though, I don't know her name.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I just checked her myspace

I just checked her myspace page and find a few suspicious items. She claims to be 18, but claims a "grad/professioanl school" education and her income as "150,000 to 250,000". Wow, that's pretty good for an 18 year old that has such poor grammar and puncuation. On the other hand, maybe she believes it's OK for x'ian to lie.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Hmm... found her myspace

Hmm... found her myspace profile, but I guess I don't know enough to figure out how to send a message on this board. I just don't need the clutter of religious argument on my myspace account.

Anyway, got to go drink some beer. All this religion makes a man thirsty.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Hmm...

Hambydammit wrote:
Hmm... found her myspace profile, but I guess I don't know enough to figure out how to send a message on this board.

She's not on this board as far as I know, you send her the message through myspace. To send a message on this board you click on a persons name next to their post and then once you're in their profile you clikc send private message.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


ALMALHAMAH
ALMALHAMAH's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2006-10-18
User is offlineOffline
The severity of its heat,

The severity of its heat, and their variation in it: An-Nu`man ibn Bashir, radhiallahu `anhu, narrated that he heard the Prophet, sallallahu `alaihi wa sallam say:

“The least torture in the Hell on the Day of Judgment is that of a man whose foot sole is laid on a live coal which causes his brain to boil just like a boiler.” [Bukhari and Muslim]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslim narrated in his Sahih:

“He does not think that any other person is tortured more severely than him although he is in the least torture.” [Muslim]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abu Huraira, radhiallahu `anhu, narrated:

This fire of yours which burns the son of Adam (in this world) is the seventieth part of the heat of the Hell. They say: ‘We swear by Allah, our fire is quite enough.’ The Prophet said: ‘It is sixty nine times more and each part of it is like the heat of your fire.’” [Muslim]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Enjoy Hell disbelievers Laughing out loud

The Future of the World and the United States can be summed up in one verse:

Quran 61:9
{ He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâmic Monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religio


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
ooh... oooh... And one time,

ooh... oooh...

And one time, this girl was doing a keg stand, and like... beer shot out her nose, and it was like... real funny man, cause we were like... hey... I bet hell is like... you know... beer shooting out your nose for eternity... cause that would suck.

Alma, have you not noticed that A) We're not scared of hell because B) It doesn't exist, and C) every time you resort to quoting some book, we make fun of you for it?

PROOF MAN.... PROOF!!

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ALMALHAMAH
ALMALHAMAH's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2006-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:ooh...

Hambydammit wrote:
ooh... oooh...

And one time, this girl was doing a keg stand, and like... beer shot out her nose, and it was like... real funny man, cause we were like... hey... I bet hell is like... you know... beer shooting out your nose for eternity... cause that would suck.

Alma, have you not noticed that A) We're not scared of hell because B) It doesn't exist, and C) every time you resort to quoting some book, we make fun of you for it?

PROOF MAN.... PROOF!!

1. Dr. T. V. N. Persaud is Professor of Anatomy, Professor of Pediatrics and Child Health, and Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

http://www.islam-guide.com/video/persaud-1.ram

2. Dr. Joe Leigh Simpson is the Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Professor of Molecular and Human Genetics at the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.

http://www.islam-guide.com/video/simpson-1.ram

3. Dr. E. Marshall Johnson is Professor Emeritus of Anatomy and Developmental Biology at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

http://www.islam-guide.com/video/johnson-1.ram

4. Dr. William W. Hay is a well-known marine scientist. He is Professor of Geological Sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA.

http://www.islam-guide.com/video/hay-1.ram

5. Dr. Yoshihide Kozai is Professor Emeritus at Tokyo University, Hongo, Tokyo, Japan, and was the Director of the National Astronomical Observatory, Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan.

http://www.islam-guide.com/video/kozai-1.ram

6. Professor Tejatat Tejasen is the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy at Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

http://www.islam-guide.com/video/tejasen-1.ram

These are all scientists, if you do not believe them, then you are an irrational athiest (which i am sure you probably are).

The Future of the World and the United States can be summed up in one verse:

Quran 61:9
{ He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâmic Monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religio


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
I was unable to view the

I was unable to view the links because my mac hates real player. I will view them as soon as I can.

ALMALHAMAH wrote:

These are all scientists, if you do not believe them, then you are an irrational athiest (which i am sure you probably are).

Alma,
I'm about sick of these ridiculous statements from you.

For the last time from me, if they are scientists then their hypotheses are testable. If they are scientists then there is no need for me to 'believe' in them because I could do the very same research and testing to arrive at their conclusion on my own if it is an accurate conclusion following correct procedures.

You have spent much time trying to tell us that your beliefs are correct. However, it doesn't matter whether a 'belief' is true or not. This is evidenced by people believing in false things all of the time.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
#1 Video summary for Josh

#1 Video summary for Josh and others who already know what I'm going to tell them about how bogus these videos are... my Real player is working, so I guess I'm the guinea pig.

There's a man who says that someone explained to him that muhammed was an ordinary, illiterate man, and he said profound things that were amazing from a scientific nature. He can't see how it's chance, and like Dr. Moore, he believes it to be divine inspiration...

(in other words... some dude thinks Muhammed was divinely inspired.)

Oh, how I don't want to go on with this, but I am, because I'm so sick and tired of Alma telling us that because some other dude says something, it's true... HOW MANY TIMES DO WE NEED TO SAY IT!!!!! Other people's word is NOT proof!

Period.

End.

Fini

Fine

Dead

This.... Is an EX-PARROT!!!!

(sigh)

ok... video number two...

Some dude is saying that Muhammed's knowledge couldn't have come to him by science, so there's some support for the idea that he was divinely inspired. Then some other dude says the same thing...

Alma, just because some dude says something, it isn't so. Would you mind producing some of the SCIENTIFIC, TESTABLE studies that these unnamed men in your videos conducted? If we could replicate them, we might believe.

(sigh)

Video #3

The Koran describes the stages of the embryo, so says this dude.

Alma, just because some dude says something, it isn't so. Would you mind producing some of the SCIENTIFIC, TESTABLE studies that these unnamed men in your videos conducted? If we could replicate them, we might believe.

#4

He finds it very interesting that this sort of information is in the Koran. He has no way of knowing where they would come frome, but he thinks it's very interesting that work is being done to discover where the information came from. He thinks the original source of the information must be the divine being.

Alma, just because some dude says something, it isn't so. Would you mind producing some of the SCIENTIFIC, TESTABLE studies that these unnamed men in your videos conducted? If we could replicate them, we might believe.

#5

He is very much impressed by finding truth in the parts of the Koran. Astronomers have been studying the very small parts of the sky and he thinks that he can find his future way for the study of the universe in the Koran.

Alma, just because some dude says something, it isn't so. Would you mind producing some of the SCIENTIFIC, TESTABLE studies that these unnamed men in your videos conducted? If we could replicate them, we might believe.

#6

He believes that everything that's been recorded in the Koran is true. Muhammed must be a holy man and what he said must be true. God must have created everything. (I'm sorry if I'm getting this one a little messed up, Alma. I really had a hard time understanding this man's accent. Anyway, I think I got the jist of it.)

Alma, just because some dude says something, it isn't so. Would you mind producing some of the SCIENTIFIC, TESTABLE studies that these unnamed men in your videos conducted? If we could replicate them, we might believe.

Let me put it another way.... If ANY scientist claims something, it ought to be because he has performed REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS or done REPEATABLE RESEARCH!!! All of these videos show men who say, with no reference to any research, that they believe the Koran.

Bully for them.

There are Christians who have PhDs and believe in Jesus, and they're wrong too, because they haven't done any repeatable experiments or research that can stand up to the scientific method.

Admit it, Alma! You have no proof! You believe because someone told you to!

(edit: Bah... ok... you did name the men. Sorry for saying unnamed. I'm going to do some internet digging on these guys and see what I can come up with.)

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ALMALHAMAH
ALMALHAMAH's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2006-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit, listen all the

Hambydammit, listen all the videos i posted are of SCIENTISTS based on their respective professional careers in their fields of scientific study.

You have all the information you need to conduct research on the backgrounds of all of the above scientists and the research they have conducted reguarding the Quran.

you have all the resources you need to find their scientific research, the question is: Do you WANT to study it?

The Future of the World and the United States can be summed up in one verse:

Quran 61:9
{ He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâmic Monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religio


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I'm working on it, dude... I

I'm working on it, dude...

I already had a whole list of links for the others here to see, and my damn computer locked up on me.

Just so nobody gets too impatient, the main thrust of a lot of what I was reading is that on the 42nd day, an angel of the lord passes over the womb and decides the gender of a baby. At least a couple of these scientists are very impressed with the fact that Muhammed seemed to know approximately when gender becomes evident in a developing fetus.

Give me a bit, and I'll read some more.

(see, this is what's cool about being me, Alma... I do my homework! I'll get back to you in a bit.)

In the meantime, here are some links for others to look at...

http://imgen.bcm.tmc.edu/molgen/facultyaz/simpson.html

http://www.islamicmedicine.org/nonmuslim.htm

If anyone wants to chew through these sites, have at it, please.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Professor Simpson

Quote:
Professor Simpson studied these two hadeeths extensively, noting that the first 40 days constitute a clearly distinguishable stage of embryo genesis. He was particularly impressed by the absolute precision and accuracy of those hadeeths. Then during one of the conferences which he attended he gave the following opinion: "So that the two hadeeths that have been noted can provide us with a specific time table for the main embryological development before 40 days. Again, the point had been made repeatedly by other speakers this morning that these hadeeths could not have been obtained on the basis of the scientific knowledge that was available at the time of their recording."

Ok... I'm fine with his assertion that the first 40 days is a stage of embryo development. Why doubt a scientist, right? Now, it gets a little sticky from there. How does he know that scientific knowledge could not have been obtained at that time? Is he a professor of history? No. So, what we have from this man is the expert opinion that 40 days is a stage of embryo development (hmm... why not 42? just wondering. Maybe it's not exactly that precise?) Then we have the assumption, based on his extensive knowledge of BIOLOGY, that HISTORICALLY, it wasn't possible for them to know this.

Well bite my britches and call me Samson, but I just don't see any resources on his website to back up his historical claim. I'll have to do some more digging....

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ALMALHAMAH
ALMALHAMAH's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2006-10-18
User is offlineOffline
"HISTORICALLY, it wasn't

"HISTORICALLY, it wasn't possible for them to know this"

If you are looking for the 40 days of each stage of the embryo you need to look toward Hadith, which means the saying of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh)

It is mentioned in the hadith:

"Verily, the creation of each one of you is brought together in his mother's womb for forty days as a sperm, and turns into a blood clot for an equal period of time, then turns into a piece of flesh for an equal period of time. Then Allah sends him an angel who is commanded about four matters, and it is said to him: write down his actions, his means of livelihood, his life span, and whether he will be wretched or blessed. Then the breath of life is blown into him..."
-Prophet Mohammed (pbuh)
-Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim

The Future of the World and the United States can be summed up in one verse:

Quran 61:9
{ He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâmic Monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religio


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Ok. In ten minutes of

Ok. In ten minutes of searching, I found this...

Quote:
A contemporary of Anaxagores, Diogenes of Apollonia, felt that the life giving force was fire. He accepted the view of Anaximander as true, but he felt it was not apherion but the heat it created that gave rise to life. He related this to heat inside the uterus and talked in terms of a living embryo. He felt there was a fire inside the embryo which set the parts in order as they developed. He stated that a mass of flesh formed first and bone and nerve were formed next. He was the first to recognize the placenta as an organ of fetal nutrition. He also theorized that the male embryo was formed in four months and the female in five. This error was probably due to the fact that in the early months of pregnancy the abdomen does not protrude and, more importantly, that fetal movement is not felt until later months.

Now, I admit that this is not completely accurate. However, this is the Greeks, ca. 550 BC. So, already, man was quite concerned with when the fetus became male or female. They had it a bit wrong, but they were doing ok... especially when we consider they were alive some 1000 years before Muhammed.

Interesting... Let me keep digging.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Scientific research in

Scientific research in Muhammad's time:
If I cut open the womb of a pregnant woman at 20 days then what do I find?
If I cut open the womb of a pregnant woman at 40 days then what do I find?
If I cut open the womb of a woman the day after sexual intercourse then what do I find?
Well shucks. It must be allah since there is no other reason.
I must have more wives to be sure. allah has proven this to me.

Just like:
If I have sex with a 10 yr. old then does she get pregnant? It will be allah's will.
If I have sex with a 2 yr. old then does she get pregnant? It will be allah's will.
I must have many wives and have sex with all so that allah has the chance to make many decisions and babies. It must be allah's will.
I do not have to provide for these babies because allah has deemed it necessary for me to do other things according to his will.

Sorry to be so graphic. Just proving a point.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


ALMALHAMAH
ALMALHAMAH's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2006-10-18
User is offlineOffline
"He also theorized that the

"He also theorized that the male embryo was formed in four months and the female in five."

The hadith nor the Quran mentions four months nor five.

The Hadith says 40 days in each stage, for 3 stages.

Basically this means 120 days total before life is given to the baby in the womb.

The Future of the World and the United States can be summed up in one verse:

Quran 61:9
{ He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâmic Monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religio


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
How about this, Alma... I

How about this, Alma... I have a man of science who disagrees with you... Not only does he have PhD before his name, but he doesn't just say he's right over and over... he backs it up with facts and footnotes.

THIS, my friend, is what we call SCIENCE!

Quote:
Review of

A New Astronomical Quranic Method for The Determination Of The Greatest Speed C

by Dr. Mansour Hassab-Elnaby, available at the URL http://www.islamicity.org/Science/960703A.HTM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) The document observes that with a suitable meaning of the terms, the equation

[speed of light] * [sidereal terrestrial day] =
[ONE THOUSAND LUNAR YEARS] * [months/year] * [moon orbit length]
is valid within the variabilities of the quantities involved. However, the definition of the [moon orbit length] in this equation has no natural meaning as a distance actually travelled by the moon in a meaningful interval, and seems strained to force the result.

(ii) It is claimed that the Quran (verse 32:5) predicted this relation 14 centuries ago, and thus "emphasises the unity of the physical world, the validity of the special theory of relativity and the authenticity of the Glorious Quran for unbelievers."

The prediction is questionable but can be defended within the considerable freedom of interpretation of ancient texts. However, the conclusion is unwarranted: The unity of the physical world does not show in numerical coincidences between otherwise unrelated quantities; the equation is completely unrelated to special relativity and the authenticity of a whole book cannot rest on the correctness of isolated and hidden facts that are open to interpretation.

(iii) Another Quran verse (22:47) is added as hinting at the same relation. But this verse is predated by essentially the same statement made in the New Testament (2 Peter 3:Cool several centuries earlier; the same arguments therefore support (or don't support) both the authenticity of the Quran and the New Testament, something probably not intended by the author.

Indeed, numerical speculations like the one in this paper crop up in all religions where people with enough time to search for coincidences feel a need to justify the authenticity of their sacred books. Such speculations are the decoy for the unfortunate people who desire a shortcut in their search for truth and life; and God allows them to be deceived until they are ready to look deeper.

This summarizes the contents and my evaluation of it. My advice to anyone reading this is to base their faith not on any `proofs' of a philosophical or numerical sort, but on an assessment of how someone's life is affected by the consequences of someone's faith. Follow those whose life and work gives - even in adverse circumstances - most witness to the power of love, learn by imitating their example, and your own life and work will be governed by this power, too.

* * * * *
In the following more detailed discussion of the basic claims (i) and (ii), I follow the Latin saying `in dubio pro reo'. This is an old rule guaranteeing fairness of trials in the Roman courts. It means: `in case of doubt, proceed on the basis that the defendant is right'.

Verses from the Quran appear in bold italics; passages from the above document are emphasized via italics. [with my amendments in square brackets, and additional comments in footnotes marked by stars *]. Spelling errors in the original are corrected.

1. The basic claim:

"The greatest speed C, denoting the velocity of light in vacuum, is hinted at in two glorious Quranic verses relating this fundamental universal constant C with the motion of the Earth-Moon system."
2. The data given:

"The length of the moon's orbit L and the time t of one terrestrial day are correlated in a marvellous Quranic verse which describes a universal constant velocity of a certain cosmic affair as follows:

"GOD rules the cosmic affair from the heavens to the earth. Then this affair travels, to Him (i.e., through the whole universe) in one day, where the measure is one thousand years of your reckoning." (32:5)
The Quranic expression "of your reckoning" leaves no doubt as to our understanding of the year as the lunar year."

As I don't speak Arabic, I cannot check the correctness of the translation, but here are alternative English renderings from several publicly available translations:

"He [GOD] directs the affair from heaven to earth, then it goes up to Him in one day, whose measure is a thousand years of your counting." (Arberry)
"He rules (all) affairs from the heavens to the earth: in the end will (all affairs) go up to Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be (as) a thousand years of your reckoning." (Yusuf Ali)

"He directeth the ordinance from the heaven unto the earth; then it ascendeth unto Him in a Day, whereof the measure is a thousand years of that ye reckon." (Pickthall)

"He regulates the affair from the heaven to the earth; then shall it ascend to Him in a day the measure of which is a thousand years of what you count." (Shakir)

(See http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/032.qmt.html for the last three renderings; http://answering-islam.org/L_islamic.html contains links to further translations.)

The author's explanatory addition "(i.e., through the whole universe) seems unsupported by the text, but may be regarded as an admissible hypothesis for further interpretation.

So (in dubio pro reo) let us assume that the translation given is adequate.

3. The interpretation of the data:

"This affair ... crosses in ONE DAY a maximum distance in space equivalent to that which the moon passes during ONE THOUSAND LUNAR YEARS (i.e. during 12000 Sidereal months)."
This is just one of many possible interpretations, and not the least contrived one. If `GOD' and `cosmic' were replaced by `An astronaut' and `important' (a semantically adequate substitution) the most natural interpretation of the resulting statement would be an indication of communication times or the associated distances, combined with some information on different ways to measure the same time interval or distance from different points of view. But then the argument given would imply that GOD is located at the distance travelled by light in one day!?

But (in dubio pro reo) let us assume that the interpretation given is adequate. Then it is still very unlikely that this was, as claimed to justify the calculation, "of your [the ARAB's] reckoning" at the time when

"the ARAB people use[d] the lunar system* in their calculation of time. The Quran addressed them in the only language they could understand without upsetting their habits."
If the Quran took such care of the habits of the ARAB people to be understood, it is difficult to see why it hasn't also expressed, in a way understandable** to them, the information claimed to be contained in this verse, namely:

"we conclude that the cosmic affair, mentioned in the previous Quranic verse, is identical to LIGHT and all similar cosmic affairs travelling in vacuum with this maximum speed".
Instead it took 14 centuries to find this out:

"This interpretation has been suggested by Zindani, A. and Dezahf M. (1989), Organization of Scientific Miracles c_ Quran, Muslim World League Makka- Kingdom of Saudi Arabian."
That the truth claimed to be in verse 32:5 of the Quran was not known before 1989 supports the much more likely hypothesis that it is a projection of modern man into the old documents.

But (in dubio pro reo) let us assume that the information was supposed to be hidden throughout the ages to be revealed only in the present times.

4. Identification of the "affair":

This is justified in the document by observing that the above interpretation reduces to the equation

[speed of light] * [sidereal terrestrial day] =
[ONE THOUSAND LUNAR YEARS] * [months/year] * [moon orbit length],

in short, C * t = 1000 * 12 * L.

To prove the equation, the document quotes the following figures and relations, which allow one to check the equation by an easy calculation.

C = 299792.458 km/s
(speed of light)

t = 23 hr, 56 min, 4.0906 sec = 86164.0906sec
(one sidereal terrestrial day)

T = 655.71986 hr = 27.321661 days
(one siderial lunar month)

Y = 1 year = 365.25636 days
(one revolution of earth around sun)

R = 384264 km
(average radius of lunar geocentric orbit)

V = 2 pi R/T = 3682.07 km/hr
(average orbital velocity of the moon)

alpha = T/Y*360 degrees = 26,92848 degrees
(angle travelled by the earth moon system around the sun
during one sidereal month)

L = V cos(alpha) T
(mean length of moon's orbit around the earth)

The problem here is with the definition of L, which, according to the above, should be a precise definition of the "maximum distance in space equivalent to that which the moon passes during" one lunar month. Obviously, this distance depends on the reference frame used to observe the moon. The author quotes the Quran,

"GOD is the ONE who created the night, the day, the sun, and the moon. Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion" (21:33).
The straightforward interpretation is that the right point of reference should be the center of mass of the earth, since the sun is describes as travelling in an orbit (around the earth, as was tradition at that time). However, the authors interpretation of this is, surprisingly,

"Here an essential scientific fact is clearly stated, namely, the existence of the earth's, sun's and moon's orbits."
The earth is not at all mentioned here. But (in dubio pro reo) let us again assume that the author's interpretation is adequate.

Then the orbit of the sun would have to be the relative motion of the sun with respect to the center of the galaxy. However, this is completely ignored in the calculation. Instead, the center of mass of the sun is apparently the intended reference frame: "the earth, and consequently the moon's orbit, have travelled some way around the sun..."

However, instead of specifying clearly the reference frame they use and then calculating a proper arclength along the moon's path in this frame, the author gives apparently deep physical arguments...

"This validity condition of the second postulate of special relativity is considered in the present work because the constancy of the velocity C needs absolute space (vacuum). To attain vacuum in the Einstein's sense of this word. it is not: sufficient just to eleminate from a volume of space every atom, molecule and particle, it is necessary also to get rid of the gravitational field. Therefore we have screened out the effect of the solar gravitational field on the geocentric orbital motion of the moon."
(This is pure nonsense. To the accuracy c is determined by the claimed calculation, the gravitational field of the sun doesn't affect the speed of light in free space; it only causes a tiny deflection very close to the sun. If one eliminates the effect of the solar gravitational field, there is no revolution around the sun and the measure of years becomes inappropriate. On the other hand, would the the author take his argument seriously, he'd also need to screen out the terrestrial gravitational field; but if one eliminates ALL gravitational fields there is no orbital motion!)

... that should justify the averaging method that leads to the above formulas:

"L is the inertial distance which the moon covers in co-revolution around the earth during one sidereal month, i.e., L is the net length of the moon's orbit due to its own geocentric motion, without the interference of its spiral motion caused by the earth's revolution around the sun, i.e., L is the lunar orbit length excluding the effect of the solar gravitational field on the measured value.
Thus the definition of `L' used has an intrinsic ambiguity completely uncharacteristic of "GOD (in Arabic ALLAH: the ONE and Only GOD, the CREATOR)" who must have loved invariance principles because they rule the physics on earth and in the heavens.

It is already very difficult at this stage to keep faith in the truth of the whole story. But (in dubio pro reo) let us assume that the definitions given are adequate, and correspond to the intentions of the writer of the Quran.

5. The consequences drawn are not conclusive:

"This astonishing result emphasises the unity of the physical world, the validity of the special theory of relativity and the authenticity of the Glorious Quran for unbelievers."
This conclusion, while it may reflect the authors feelings, is not based on the new interpretations exposed in the document.

The unity of the physical world does not show in numerical coincidences between otherwise unrelated quantities, but instead in a coherent interrelation of laws and facts that add insight into the working of the universe. What is the use of knowing C * t = 1000 * 12 * L ? Even if accepted as true, it is an isolated fact, not helping in understanding the universe.

Furthermore, there is nothing relativistic about the "new relativistic interpretation of this Quranic relation". The equation is completely unrelated to special relativity; the equations mentioned follow from elementary geometry, and the references in the text to relativity could be dropped without affecting the logical chain of arguments. But that relativity is mentioned gives the text of course a much more scientific feel, an important decoy if one wants to lure our modern, science-credulous folks into accepting something they would otherwise be suspicious of.

Also, the authenticity of an whole book cannot rest on the correctness of isolated and hidden facts that are open to interpretation. One part of a book can contain facts and another part be erroneous. Even the best modern physics books, and especially those for laymen, contain together with lots of truths a good number of inaccuracies or even outright falsehoods. And anyone can quote a truth to embellish his work.

The fact that the relation (if true and intended) could not be the work of human beings with the limited knowledge of their time might be counted as sign of a signature of a trancendental power. But even then it remains dubious whose signature it is; it could be the signature of an irritating or even deceiving spirit, and cannot be uncritically attributed to the CREATOR.

"This new law deduced in the present work is important so far as it confirms the law of conservation of momentum in the Earth-Moon system. Moreover it implies the influence of the tidal effect and the gravitational change factor on the this system."
The paper contains no new law, only an equation that does not allow anything to be predicted from it except this equation itself. Nothing at all in the arguments involved in the derivation of the equation is related to either conservation of momentum or tides or gravitational changes; therefore it cannot confirm or imply these things in any significant sense of the words. But again, mentioning it impresses many people by its scientific appearance.

"According to Dirac's cosmology, the universal gravitational constant G must be variable in time!"
Stated here as a fact, this is a speculative minority view in physics, and there is no theory of gravitation that embeds Dirac's speculations into a common framework with the part of general relativity confirmed by experiment. The equations quoted after this statement are true but lead nowhere except to a wish that "Correlating the last three equations, further studies in Cosmology may be prompted and facilitated", but they serve the goal of making the arguments more seductive to laymen and casual readers.

"This work proves the universality and constancy of the fundamental constant C as the Greatest Cosmic Speed and reveals the Glorious Quran as a Holy Book worth studying with meticulous analysis since its author is the CREATOR of the Universe."
Universality is proved by many physical experiments and functioning clocks and other devices, not by some speculations as those in this paper. Constancy is a matter of definition, after having accepted the framework of relativity; there is nothing to prove. And, indeed, the present paper proves nothing in these respects.

And the CREATOR of the Universe should be able to provide the scholars of His Holy Book as a result of their meticulous analysis not with numerical pastimes demonstrated in this document, but with powers to live and understand.

6. Epilogue

How many physicists would subscribe to this exaggerated statement?

"It will come as no exaggeration if one says the story of the determination of the velocity of light is a concise history of physics."
Perhaps it should better read:

It will come as no exaggeration if one says the story of the "New Astronomical Quranic Method for The Determination Of The Greatest Speed" is a typical overassessment of the importance of the discovery of a minor coincidence in the sea of possible relations between physically meaningful numbers and semantic interpretations of ancient texts.
Prof. Dr. Arnold Neumaier
Institute of Mathematics
University of Vienna
http://solon.cma.univie.ac.at/~neum/sciandf.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes:

* However, the "Dictionary of Islam" by Thomas Patrick Hughes, Kazi Publ., writes on p. 696:

... in the year A.D. 412, the Arabians introduced a system of intercalation, whereby one month was intercaleted into every three years. (See M. de Perceval, vol. i. p. 242). This system of intercalation existed in the time of Muhammad; but it is related that, at the farewell pilgrimage, the Prophet recited the khutbah on the Day of Sacrifice, and said: "A year is twelve months only, as at the time of the creation," and thus again introduced the lunar year. (See Mishkat, book xi. ch.xi.)
And Yusuf Ali writes in his Qur'an commentary, footnote 1295, commenting on Sura 9:36:

... it may be noted that the Arab year was roughly luni solar like the Hindu year, the months being lunar and the intercalation of a month every three years brought the year nearly but not accurately up to the solar reckoning. From the year of the Farewell Pilgrimage (A.H. 10) the Islamic year was definitely fixed as a purely lunar year of roughly 354 days, the months being calculated by the actual appearance of the moon.
Thus it appears that rather than addressing "them in the only language they could understand without upsetting their habits", the Quran did not hesitate to upset the ARAB's habits regarding their measure of time.

This would not invalidate the remainder of the argument if Sura 9:36 can be taken to define the language on this point. The latter Sura was probably revealed several years before Sura 32:5 and Sura 22:47 (inferred from Yusuf Ali's comments on Sura 32:23 and Sura 22); so one would have to assume in addition, that the meaning of these Suras would have been intended to be obscure at the time of revelation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

** I was informed that the word light and the word speed were ordinary Arabic words. Why would God not say the speed of light is like.... if he wanted to make a real proof for the origin of this info? Why obscure it so much that only a great effort can construct a calculation that involves the speed of light?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Qur'an, Islam and Science
Answering Islam Home Page

Would you care to offer scientific evidence, or perhaps some of your math equations, to counter his arguments?

Yes, Alma, I know this isn't about fetuses. I already showed you that people were already well on their way to that knowledge 1000 years earlier. Your claim is baseless, and I'm not going to trouble myself with it any more.

This is a scientific refutation of your claim that the Quran predicts science. I did my homework and refuted your claim. Now you do yours and refute this guy's work.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ALMALHAMAH
ALMALHAMAH's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2006-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote:How about this,

Quote:
How about this, Alma... I have a man of science who disagrees with you... Not only does he have PhD before his name, but he doesn't just say he's right over and over... he backs it up with facts and footnotes.

You did not address the scientific findings of all of the above scientists. all you did was switch the subject and post some random article that i will now refute.

Looki lookie what I found out:
Arnold Neumaier (Christian; Prof. of Math, Vienna, Austria)

u didnt think i would let you get away with this did you?

I found the same article on the answering-islam website, no matter i am sure you never do your own research by directly reading the Quran or Hadith.

It was actually found on a CHRISTIAN website, surprizing? (I think Not)

I will refute this tomorrow, it is too long and its too late tonight.

The Future of the World and the United States can be summed up in one verse:

Quran 61:9
{ He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâmic Monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religio


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Alma, you have an astounding

Alma, you have an astounding ability to miss the point completely.

I'll spell it out for you...

You claim that the Quran predicted science. You produce scientists who say that in their expert opinion, the Quran predicted science.

I refute your claim about embryos by pointing out that the Greeks were damn near to that point a thousand years earlier. This casts enough doubt on your claim that it can be dismissed. (The claim, after all, is that there was NO WAY that people could know about embryonic development at that time... obviously they could, because they knew about it a millenium earlier!) And yes, the thing about embryos was the claim of the first scientist on your list.

After refuting your first claim, I decided that you should see what a real scientific claim looks like, since you haven't produced any real scientific documents yet.
Since you like playing the game of quoting sources, I found a nice quote for you, only with math in it. My PhD doesn't just say "I think the Quran did not predict science." He says it, and then goes on to explain why it's a load of hooey in the language of math and science.

See, mine is better than yours because yours is just hearsay and mine is science. I don't care who says a thing if there's no evidence. I want evidence, not scientists.

(You're being very clever yourself... giving me more stuff to refute without attempting to refute my argument!)

Also, what difference does it make where you find some scientist's name? I'm baffled. Goody that they listed some dude on a Christian website.

I'm not actually sure what you're talking about with the answering Islam website. I guess I linked to that article through a different route. I assume you're talking about the one I posted. What does it matter where I found it?

Anyway, I'm sure I can find some good info on the new scientist you want me to look at. I'm working on three or four threads at a time, so cut me a little slack. I may not get to all of them, but here's the deal. If I'm going to go through all the trouble to find academic refutation of your claims, you're either going to have to put up some refutation of the refutation or just stop bothering us with this.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Oh, Krike, Alma. Why'd you

Oh, Krike, Alma. Why'd you even point me in the direction of this buffoon?

The quote from Dr. Arnold Neumaier, at the top of his webpage:

"Science is the truth only in matters that can be objectified; in the spiritual world, where values, goals, authority and purpose are located, science has nothing to say. It is a poor life that is restricted to the scientific standard of truth, where you and I are nothing but a collection of atoms without meaning and purpose. Realizing the narrow-minded nature of science opens the gate to an understanding of God that complements the scientific truth and gives life, love and peace."

That's really, astoundingly, drudgingly boring. I'm not even going to explain why this man's opinion is completely useless in this debate.

Would someone else who's reading this thread take the ten minutes to explain this? I just don't have the heart right now.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ALMALHAMAH
ALMALHAMAH's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2006-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I refute your claim

Quote:
I refute your claim about embryos by pointing out that the Greeks were damn near to that point a thousand years earlier.

you didn't show the source nor did you show me where it stated the embryo developed in THREE STAGES, and each stage took 40 days.

you have yet to show me evidence of this precisly before the 7th century.

you posted some random article from an unknown source about a speculation which is not even consistent with embryology, four months for men and five for women.

Rediculous.

The Future of the World and the United States can be summed up in one verse:

Quran 61:9
{ He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâmic Monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religio


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Seriously, Alma, I'm almost

Seriously, Alma, I'm almost done with this. I'm not going to hand everything to you on a silver platter. Heard of the Greeks? Heard of libraries? There are TONS of books that have the collected wisdom of the ancient Greeks.

Just so you don't call me a liar, the information I gave you was from a syllabus for the course The Origin of Life:A history of Ancient Greek Theories, which was designed by Joyce Puglia, of the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute. I'm sure that the librarian at Yale University could direct you to the sources for this information. Are you going to tell me that the folks at Yale don't know about Greek history?

DUDE DON"T YOU GET IT!?!?!?!

Listen -- The claim of the Quran-Science apologists is that it is impossible that the people in the middle east in the 7th century could have knowledge of when the fetus becomes male or female. I don't need to prove that so-and-so person in the middle east had that knowledge. All I have to do is prove that it was possible that someone did, and then your precious scientists' claims are refuted! Simple as that.

Sooooo...

I have given you evidence that a thousand years before that, the Greeks were already experimenting with fetuses, and were not too damn far off the mark, as ancient science goes. Therefore, your scientists' claims are either lies or ignorance. There is the distinct possibility that in a thousand years, medical knowledge progressed enough to label growth stages and predict with some certainty when gender became evident.

Here's the bottom line, Alma. You are one of three things: Ignorant, a liar, or an instigator.

It's possible you just don't understand logic. I can believe that, because I, and many other people in this thread, have presented you with perfectly logical statements, and you either ignore them, or answer them in a way that doesn't make any logical sense.

It's possible you're lying to us or yourself. If you're lying to yourself, maybe more talk would help, but I'm not a psychologist, so I'm not really interested in dealing with that. If you're lying to us, well, pfffffttth!

It's also possible that you just enjoy getting people riled up by acting dense and never getting the point of a post.

I don't know.

I'm kind of leaning towards some combination of ignorant and instigator, but that's just my opinion. I suggest you go to your local college and buy a textbook on basic logic. You don't seem to understand how it works, and I think it would really help you put together more successful arguments.

As far as your scientists go, here's how this is going to work. I'm not going to bother with you until you engage in a rational discussion of my refutation of the fetus argument. I've debunked it. It's done. Finito! You must revive it by either proving to me that everybody stopped thinking about fetuses for the entire period between 500 BC and Muhammed, or that there is no possible way that in a thousand years of progress, that they could have figured out when a baby becomes male or female. To do this, you must have scholarly evidence. If you have none, your claim is refuted! Kaput!

So, that's it. I'm done with this discussion until there's some evidence on the table.

And don't you dare say I chickened out. It will only prove that you haven't been paying attention.

And obviously, you didn't read my last post. I explained to you why I posted that article, and I never said it had anything to do with embryos. The embryo thing took 10 minutes to debunk because it's so blatantly false.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ALMALHAMAH
ALMALHAMAH's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2006-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote:As far as your

Quote:
As far as your scientists go, here's how this is going to work. I'm not going to bother with you until you engage in a rational discussion of my refutation of the fetus argument. I've debunked it. It's done. Finito! You must revive it by either proving to me that everybody stopped thinking about fetuses for the entire period between 500 BC and Muhammed, or that there is no possible way that in a thousand years of progress, that they could have figured out when a baby becomes male or female. To do this, you must have scholarly evidence. If you have none, your claim is refuted! Kaput!

What you posted was some vague sentence about a Greek person who guessed that the embryo grows during four months for men, and five months for women.

You have yet to prove what source already knew that the baby has THREE stages, AND each stage takes 40 days just as mentioned in the hadith:

"Verily, the creation of each one of you is brought together in his mother's womb for forty days as a sperm, and turns into a blood clot for an equal period of time, then turns into a piece of flesh for an equal period of time. Then Allah sends him an angel who is commanded about four matters, and it is said to him: write down his actions, his means of livelihood, his life span, and whether he will be wretched or blessed. Then the breath of life is blown into him..."
-Prophet Mohammed (pbuh)
-Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim

hahaha i like how you get all rilled up for nothing, you didn't even show a source.

The Future of the World and the United States can be summed up in one verse:

Quran 61:9
{ He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâmic Monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religio


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Yep. I'm done. I can't

Yep. I'm done.

I can't think of any way to refute your argument that I didn't cite a source when I cited a freaking Yale scholar as a source.

Would you like some mashed potatoes?

Yes, thank you.

Here are your mashed potatoes.

Those aren't mashed potatoes.

Yes they are

No they're not.

Do you know what a potato is?

Yes.

Then you can see that these are potatoes.

No, those are not potatoes.

I'd like to say it's been a pleasure, but you've been one of the most disingenuous, evasive, and down-right irritating people I've ever tried to have a debate with.

See you in the funny papers.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Alma, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


ALMALHAMAH
ALMALHAMAH's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2006-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Yep. I'm

Hambydammit wrote:
Yep. I'm done.

I can't think of any way to refute your argument that I didn't cite a source when I cited a freaking Yale scholar as a source.

Quote:
A contemporary of Anaxagores, Diogenes of Apollonia, felt that the life giving force was fire. He accepted the view of Anaximander as true, but he felt it was not apherion but the heat it created that gave rise to life. He related this to heat inside the uterus and talked in terms of a living embryo. He felt there was a fire inside the embryo which set the parts in order as they developed. He stated that a mass of flesh formed first and bone and nerve were formed next. He was the first to recognize the placenta as an organ of fetal nutrition. He also theorized that the male embryo was formed in four months and the female in five. This error was probably due to the fact that in the early months of pregnancy the abdomen does not protrude and, more importantly, that fetal movement is not felt until later months.

Now, I admit that this is not completely accurate. However, this is the Greeks, ca. 550 BC. So, already, man was quite concerned with when the fetus became male or female. They had it a bit wrong, but they were doing ok... especially when we consider they were alive some 1000 years before Muhammed.

Interesting... Let me keep digging.

you admit yourself it is not accurate so why post innacurate information? Maybe your used to that.

you think the hadith or quran copied Diogenes of Apollonia??

He thought embryology was caused from 'fire in the belly' or 'fire inside the embryo which set the parts in order as they developed'.

LETS SET ALL THE WOMEN's STOMACH ABLAZE!!

Quote:
Would you like some mashed potatoes?

Yes, thank you.

Here are your mashed potatoes.

Those aren't mashed potatoes.

Yes they are

No they're not.

Do you know what a potato is?

Yes.

Then you can see that these are potatoes.

No, those are not potatoes.

I'd like to say it's been a pleasure, but you've been one of the most disingenuous, evasive, and down-right irritating people I've ever tried to have a debate with.

See you in the funny papers.

If you keep talking to yourself like that you will end up on the funny papers.

The Future of the World and the United States can be summed up in one verse:

Quran 61:9
{ He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâmic Monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religio


ALMALHAMAH
ALMALHAMAH's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2006-10-18
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh

That's a great history lesson Darth, how about you point me in the direction where it explains that there are THREE stages of a baby in the mother's womb before it receives life AND ALSO each stage develops within 40 days as narrated in the hadith i posted.

I am looking for specifics, not vague statements.

The Future of the World and the United States can be summed up in one verse:

Quran 61:9
{ He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâmic Monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religio


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Oh for fuck's sake. Have you

Oh for fuck's sake.

Have you ever heard the question:

"Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

So did the prophet. Where did he hear the question? Probably from Aristotelian teachings, not a 'god'.

Embryology reaches back far into human history. Why didn't ancient humans know more about it? Probably because they were told by their tribal leaders not to worry about it because babies were gifts from whatever god or goddess placed in charge of 'fertility'.

The proverbial wise men or elders of the village had countless examples of pregnancies and births on which to base THEIR brand of logic. All one need do then is simply write it down and attribute it to god and FORCE everyone to believe in their truth or die as an infidel.

And all the while, you and other adherents to 'faiths' see this as acceptable rather than abominable.

Take a look around you today, Alma. The world is not the world of the prophet. It will never be. Answer me these questions:

Why has allah abandoned the world?
What purpose would the almalhamah serve? To vindicate your struggle? I thought that allah wanted you to struggle?
Why the hadiths? Could not allah's words be given solely by the prophet? Why did the law change so? Is it because society changed and there was no room for islam?
If allah had explained the world to islam through these suwar that you have posted then why are there new worldly discoveries every day?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


ALMALHAMAH
ALMALHAMAH's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2006-10-18
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:Oh for

darth_josh wrote:
Oh for fuck's sake.

Have you ever heard the question:

"Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

So did the prophet. Where did he hear the question? Probably from Aristotelian teachings, not a 'god'.

Embryology reaches back far into human history. Why didn't ancient humans know more about it? Probably because they were told by their tribal leaders not to worry about it because babies were gifts from whatever god or goddess placed in charge of 'fertility'.

The proverbial wise men or elders of the village had countless examples of pregnancies and births on which to base THEIR brand of logic. All one need do then is simply write it down and attribute it to god and FORCE everyone to believe in their truth or die as an infidel.

And all the while, you and other adherents to 'faiths' see this as acceptable rather than abominable.

You think by posting random stuff it will refute my argument when you know well it is too vague.

I challenged you to provide me proof that the Greek knew about THREE STAGES of a baby's development before receiving life AND that each stage takes 40 days.

you have failed to do so, and are getting frustrated.

Quote:
Take a look around you today, Alma. The world is not the world of the prophet. It will never be. Answer me these questions:

Why has allah abandoned the world?

Allah (swt) has not abandoned the world, in fact He sent every nation a prophet.

This means you humans abandoned God and filled the earth with corruption and mischief.

Quote:
What purpose would the almalhamah serve? To vindicate your struggle? I thought that allah wanted you to struggle?

ALMALHAMAH will be a sign for all mankind that the day of judgement is nearing, and that Islam which is the true religion of God will prevail over all others.

Quote:
Why the hadiths? Could not allah's words be given solely by the prophet?

The hadiths are revelations given to the prophet from God through the Angel Gabrael.

Allah gave the criteria of salat, or prayer to Muhammed (pbuh) directly, no intermediaries.

Quote:
Why did the law change so? Is it because society changed and there was no room for islam?

What law change?

The only law change i think you are talking about is christianity. The laws of the jews were an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. The christians CHANGED this law. Islam has the same law eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Quote:
If allah had explained the world to islam through these suwar that you have posted then why are there new worldly discoveries every day?

The Quran is not a SCIENTIFIC BOOK. It is a revelation from God with scientific proof that it cannot be written by man, especially an illiterate.

This does not mean you will not find new worldly discoveries. In fact the Quran tells you that you will finds signs everywhere (especially in research):

Quran 41:53
{ We will show them Our Signs in the universe, and in their ownselves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Qur'ân) is the truth. Is it not sufficient in regard to your Lord that He is a Witness over all things? }

The Future of the World and the United States can be summed up in one verse:

Quran 61:9
{ He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâmic Monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religio


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Here, I'll give you

Here, I'll give you something to work with.

4:1 O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women. Be careful of your duty toward Allah in Whom ye claim (your rights) of one another, and toward the wombs (that bare you). Lo! Allah hath been a watcher over you.

Mankind not the process of evolution, but created from a single soul? Oh my!

7:80 And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Homosexual acts are condemned as unnatural. (Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?) But, in fact, such acts are common in many other species.
7:81 Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk.

What's this? What about all the animal species that commit homosexual acts, such as bonobos?

27:61 Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode, and placed rivers in the folds thereof, and placed firm hills therein, and hath set a barrier between the two seas ? Is there any God beside Allah ? Nay, but most of them know not!

Fixed, you say? Gee, that sucks.

81:2 And when the stars fall,

Stars don't fall. They're millions of light years away.

Surprisingly enough, the Qu'ran is less scientifically inaccurate than the Bible.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


ALMALHAMAH
ALMALHAMAH's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2006-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Here, I'll give you

Quote:
Here, I'll give you something to work with.

i see you changed the subject, interesting.

Quote:
4:1 O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women. Be careful of your duty toward Allah in Whom ye claim (your rights) of one another, and toward the wombs (that bare you). Lo! Allah hath been a watcher over you.

Mankind not the process of evolution, but created from a single soul? Oh my!

The probability of the formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a probability likely to be realised once in the whole universe. Otherwise, some metaphysical powers beyond our definition should have acted in its formation. To accept the latter is not appropriate to the goals of science. We therefore have to look into the first hypothesis.

source:
Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara: Meteksan Yayinlari 1984, p. 61

Quote:
7:80 And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Homosexual acts are condemned as unnatural. (Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?) But, in fact, such acts are common in many other species.
7:81 Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk.

What's this? What about all the animal species that commit homosexual acts, such as bonobos?

This shows how much respect you treat homosexuals, you equate them with animals with little brains, such as bonobos.

Quote:
27:61 Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode, and placed rivers in the folds thereof, and placed firm hills therein, and hath set a barrier between the two seas ? Is there any God beside Allah ? Nay, but most of them know not!

Fixed, you say? Gee, that sucks.

So the earth is not your fixed abode? Then what other planet is you fixed abode. Fixed abode as in One place of living, not living on multiple planets.

Quote:
81:2 And when the stars fall,

Stars don't fall. They're millions of light years away.

LOL im sure you don't know how to read because it says 'WHEN', as in when in the future it happens.

Quote:
Surprisingly enough, the Qu'ran is less scientifically inaccurate than the Bible.

The Quran is not scientifically inaccurate at all.

The Future of the World and the United States can be summed up in one verse:

Quran 61:9
{ He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâmic Monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religio


Kelreth
Kelreth's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-09-14
User is offlineOffline
how quaint, tisk tisk those

how quaint, tisk tisk those all caps sure do prove the point....


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:i see you changed the

Quote:
i see you changed the subject, interesting.

This subject hardly interests me, I'm just adding some fuel to the fire.

Quote:
The probability of the formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a probability likely to be realised once in the whole universe. Otherwise, some metaphysical powers beyond our definition should have acted in its formation. To accept the latter is not appropriate to the goals of science. We therefore have to look into the first hypothesis.

source:
Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara: Meteksan Yayinlari 1984, p. 61

Strawman argument. Evolutionary theory does not claim that cytochrome C formed spontaneously. Instead, precursors to it arose through natural selection until we arrived at the final product.

Furthermore, if you admit that the Qu'ran is anti-evolution, you admit that it is scientifically inaccurate because evolution occurs, and is responsible for the diversity of life on earth. You can quote as many irrelevant assholes as you like, but I guarantee you that they will not have one bit of good evidence against it.

Quote:
So the earth is not your fixed abode? Then what other planet is you fixed abode. Fixed abode as in One place of living, not living on multiple planets.

Notice it says "made the earth a fixed abode," not "your fixed abode." This is consistent with the contemporary geocentric belief that was accepted at the time.

Quote:
LOL im sure you don't know how to read because it says 'WHEN', as in when in the future it happens.

I'm simply pointing out that this quote is very consistent with the belief that stars are simply glowing dots in the sky, instead of gigantic, flaming balls of gas. If a star was to collide with the earth, it's more likely that the earth would "fall" into the star.

Quote:
The Quran is not scientifically inaccurate at all.

Uh-huh. If it is scientific, it should embrace the theory of evolution. You do your best to fight against the theory of evolution, all while claiming that your inspiration is the Qu'ran. Clearly, something is amiss.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


ALMALHAMAH
ALMALHAMAH's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2006-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Didn't the theory of

Didn't the theory of Evolution origionate from Charles Darwin, in the late 19th century?

What's so interesting about Evolution is the history of it. Charles Darwin adopted these beliefs after the death of his daughter, in which he became very depressed.

Take a look for yourself:

The 1851 death of Darwin's daughter, Annie, was the final step in pushing an already doubting Darwin away from the idea of a beneficent God.

Then his treasured daughter Annie fell ill, reawakening his fears that his illness might be hereditary. After a long series of crises, she died and Darwin lost all faith in a beneficent God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_darwin#Development_of_theory

The Future of the World and the United States can be summed up in one verse:

Quran 61:9
{ He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâmic Monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religio


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
That article also talks

That article also talks about how the theory was being formed before her death...

Quote:
Darwin formulated a short "Pencil Sketch" of his theory, and by 1844 had written a 240-page "Essay" that expanded his early ideas on natural selection.

If you really want to explore this idea I suggest you go to http://darwin-online.org.uk/ as is quite literally everything you could want and don't want to know about Darwin. Really it even includes things like his daily journals and letters.

The "you just hate god" argument is a very poor one and certainly won't fly in this crowd.

Did his lack of faith affect his work? Probably, but it is foolish to think he made up the theory to justify it and if anything it may have been the thing that let him develop such thoughts further. How likely do you think it would be for a faithful man to go about considering how the whole creation theory in the bible could be wrong? Being a scientist that’s what he started doing, but such things where controversial and not accepted by most people at this time. And then if the scientist has that faith in the back of his/her mind the whole time they’re doing it they either have to ignore the conflict or give into one line of reasoning.

Also this whole idea if evolution isn't completely disagreeable to a god. Sure it would disagree with an idea of god that is actively involved in our lives, but there are some who feel god is some what aloof to what goes on in our world. Really the worst thing he had to do to really explore this theory is to consider this idea of god. This would probably mess with his ideas of jesus a little, but not like blowing the whole god idea out of the water. Although if proof is lacking what could that mean? Puzzled

A lack of a belief is based on lacking evidence. If you don't believe me think about other supernatural ideas and "fringe" sciences.


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
ALMALHAMAH wrote:Didn't the

ALMALHAMAH wrote:
Didn't the theory of Evolution origionate from Charles Darwin, in the late 19th century?

What's so interesting about Evolution is the history of it. Charles Darwin adopted these beliefs after the death of his daughter, in which he became very depressed.

Take a look for yourself:

The 1851 death of Darwin's daughter, Annie, was the final step in pushing an already doubting Darwin away from the idea of a beneficent God.

Then his treasured daughter Annie fell ill, reawakening his fears that his illness might be hereditary. After a long series of crises, she died and Darwin lost all faith in a beneficent God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_darwin#Development_of_theory

Another logical fallacy: appeal to authority, as well as attack on character. First of all, Darwin's (a)theism is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Second, the evidence is what you must consider - not the man. Do you realize that this does not hurt the theory of evolution in the least? I expect a yes to this, in which case there was no point in posting it.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexo

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/sex_research.html (article about sex research and knowledge)

People have said it before, but I'll say it again in relation to this article. People had knowledge of fetal development before the Quran was written and would have grown with time. At worst the quran stole this knowledge from someone and said "god told me" and at best the quran added to these ideas and said "god told me". Now here is the important question. You say it is not a scientific book but say it has science in it. What is the point of bring it up?


ALMALHAMAH
ALMALHAMAH's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2006-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Another logical

Quote:
Another logical fallacy: appeal to authority, as well as attack on character.

Well it is true, whether you like it or not. Darwin's atheistic view was influenced by his daughter's death, either partly or completly.

Quote:
First of all, Darwin's (a)theism is irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

Isn't the whole theory of evolution anti theistic in nature?

Quote:
Second, the evidence is what you must consider - not the man.

So basically you don't want to study the history but you want to study the results?

Quote:
Do you realize that this does not hurt the theory of evolution in the least?

It doesn't hurt it, but it shows the roots of it or what contributed to it.

Quote:
I expect a yes to this, in which case there was no point in posting it.

my point is that evolution was either wholy or partly based on darwins emotional distress about his daughter's death.

The Future of the World and the United States can be summed up in one verse:

Quran 61:9
{ He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâmic Monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religio


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
ALMALHAMAH wrote:Well it is

ALMALHAMAH wrote:
Well it is true, whether you like it or not. Darwin's atheistic view was influenced by his daughter's death, either partly or completly.

I don't care if it is true - it has no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory has been greatly modified and expanded since Darwin's ideas were published - Darwin was very important, but his work is somewhat outdated at this point.

Quote:
Isn't the whole theory of evolution anti theistic in nature?

The whole theory of evolution is about explaining the natural phenomena we observe, particularly the diversity of life on earth. It is my belief that good science is anti-theistic in nature. This includes everything from evolution to economics. Science is, generally speaking, observation, hypothesis, and falsification. Religion, on the other hand, is assumption of absolute truth. Science never claims that it discovers truths that will never be changed: it is based on the idea that if powerful evidence exists to the contrary, a theory will be discarded and replaced by a new one.

Quote:

So basically you don't want to study the history but you want to study the results?

Basically, the history has no bearing on the validity of the theory itself. You seem to have trouble grasping this.

Quote:
It doesn't hurt it, but it shows the roots of it or what contributed to it.

Okay.

Quote:
my point is that evolution was either wholy or partly based on darwins emotional distress about his daughter's death.

So, do you think the primary motivator of Darwin's theory was his daughter's death, or the thousands of observations and deductions he made during his journeys?

His daughter's death may have contributed greatly to his atheism, but his theory stands on its own - regardless of motivations. Evolution is true because the evidence says so, not because Darwin decided so. I'm getting tired of your pointless attacks on authority and motive. This is not how science works.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.