To people who believe in God, could you answer my questions?

Scroll to see replies

at least this thread highlights that getting ahead of other people in the professional world won't be much of a hardship at all

Reply 121

immigrant #963

1)What religion do you belong to?
Islam

2)Have you "experienced" God in any way, shape or form?
I may be a Christmas baby (the irony) but do I really look like Jesus to you? So no.

3)What was your experience?
They went out and actually saved fries for me. What a miracle.

4)Do you believe you will meet/experience God one day?
Ok, I'll actually try to be serious here. Do I believe I'll experience God in this world? Nah. I don't believe God would come down to Earth, just a hunch. Life is just one big show and after we're dead and six feet under, *that's* when the real show begins. If God exists, that is when I believe I will meet/experience them (as I tumble into the pits of hell). But yeah, that's just my point of view.

Reply 122

SummerStrawberry

1)What religion do you belong to? Christianity.

2)Have you "experienced" God in any way, shape or form? I don't know, and I don't think anyone knows.

3)What was your experience? There has not been any experience in my life to which I can point and say "this was divine intervention" with conviction, but I feel that there are a number of little places in which God has helped me. I couldn't tell you exactly what they are/were, but I just know that they're there. Could they have all been just chance? A series of fortunate events? Of course, but to me they feels as though they were God.

4)Do you believe you will meet/experience God one day? I hope so. If/when I do meet God I would ask many questions, and many of them would probably be reminiscent of the sort of questions which are often asked by those trying to debunk religious beliefs. In my view, challenging your faith is the best way to strengthen it, and what better way to challenge a faith than to challenge its deity.

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

Faith is a very strange phenomenon in that it relies on trust. To walk, with a friend, across a tightrope requires faith that your friend will not push you off. To walk, with God, through life requires faith that God will not let you fall. You have to trust your friend in the same way that you have to trust God, and there is no definitive way of knowing whether or not your faith is misplaced.

The way I see it is that God gives us two options to live our lives: we can go through life alone, and God will let us do so. In the same way that a stranger would help us if we had a heart attack on the train, God will give us occasional nudges in the right direction, but he will leave us largely alone. Alternatively, we can choose to have God with us during every moment, guiding us. The cost of this is simply to ask for it, and this is repeated in both the books of Matthew and Luke: "For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened." - Matthew 7:8; "So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you." - Luke 11:9.

God is an omniscient, omnipresent being. God is willing to share that with you. What will happen in your life will happen regardless, but you have the opportunity to have the controller of that life stood alongside you should you wish for it; all you have to do is take it.

Reply 123

Metalfros

1)What religion do you belong to?
Islam.

2)Have you "experienced" God in any way, shape or form?
Not really, although my believe goes deep. Everytime I pray I get a good feeling and everything seems to go better then when I don't I can write a whole essay on this, but don't want to trigger any atheists.

3)What was your experience?
^See above.

4)Do you believe you will meet/experience God one day?
Well, yeah obviously. But only after my death and if I have done enough to be allowed to enter Djannah (heaven) insha allah.

Reply 124

username1894983

Original post by Robby2312

Thats not the same at all.If I wanted to I could pay someone to knock me unconcious,cut my skull open and take a picture or a tissue sample to prove I have a brain.I could crack open other peoples skulls and see their brain.I could use an mri scanner to see my brain.Its logical to assume I have a brain as I'm a human and all other humans have brains.The difference is that I could look at the evidence for myself if I wanted to.The quran on the other hand makes claims backed by no evidence.I t says mohhamed flew to heaven on a winged horse.No winged horses have ever been observed.Heaven has never been observed.All you have to go on is the quran says this is true so it must be true.I'd be interested to know what magic you have seen happening?

Original post by Robby2312

That doesn't neglect the fact that you have never ever touched tasted felt seen or heard your brain , you are assuming that you have a brain based on the testimony of someone reliable.

In the same way I believe the Quran to be a reliable and accurate source of information why I believe that is beyond the scope of this post, as far as miracles of the past are concerned they are part of the package of the things I have to believe, they are not the reason why I believe in Islam.

Black Magic or a better term sihr, can be prooven to you, the issue is that a Muslim can't physically proof it as it isn't permissible for him to carry out magic as it can put him out the fold of islam.

The proof will be as follows: once the magic is done -> if the intended effect takes place then that will act as proof.

And no I am not challenging you or encouraging you to indulge in such a filthy act as it is a great evil and does not benefit one.

Perhaps this will clarify the nature of sihr/magic will be worth a watch
[video="youtube;J-p7xkSRtWE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-p7xkSRtWE[/video]

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 125

MisbahY

1) I am a practicing Muslim so I follow Islam.

2) Muslims pray 5 times a day.. So when I do pray I do feel that I am connected to God in some way. I feel a sign of relief and happiness whilst I pray.

3) The only experience I do get is after I pray, I feel calmer and happier. Lately I have been thinking about God more which makes me feel that I am appreciating everything that he has given me.

4) I believe I will meet God one day which will be on the Day of Judgement & if I have been a good person then I will get to see him. Try my hardest to be the best I can.

I hope my answers help you in some form!

If you can help then please can you reply on this post.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4336652

Thank You! :smile:

Reply 126

TheonlyMrsHolmes

Thank you to everyone who has actually answered my question, and to all the respectful people who may not have agreed but read my initial bolded paragraph in my OP and were respectful. :h:

Reply 127

username2763536

Original post by Kraixo

I'm not assuming it.I'm using logic and reason to infer the existence of my brain.Considering all humans and animals have a brain it is not illogical to infer that I also have a brain.That is different to assuming that magic or satan exists.There is no logical reason to conclude that magic exists.N o one has ever performed magic yet everyone else has a brain.We have seen brains.We have photographs and organs donated to medical science to prove that brains really exist.To be honest I cant actually believe that I'm having to convince someone in the 21 st century that black magic isnt real.

thats a medieval belief.And it was a belief born out of ignorance.The weather turned bad and your crops failed it was obviously the local witch.Now we know it was caused by simple weather patterns not magic.Someone in the village got sick.Obviously the local witch or maybe god was punishing us for our sins.No.It was something called germs.Germs and viruses cause people to get sick.Not witchcraft.Such nonsense has no place in a civilised country in the 21 st century.We know why people get sick now and we dont need magic or demons to explain it.

Reply 128

_gcx

Study Forum Helper

Original post by Kraixo

I really can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but are you aware of X-rays, MRI scans, and the fact that it's impossible for an animal to live without a brain?

Reply 129

string56

Original post by Robby2312

You should take a read of this, of how unsubstantiated tripe Muslim apologists believe, are exacerbating untreated mental health problems, due to attributing such negative mental health conditions like "Schizophrenia, Bipolar disorder and depression" to "possession" by unproven "supernatural entities/magic". At the very extreme, such beliefs can even result in the death of the supposed "Jinn" possessed victim, by family members...

"...As well as the misdiagnosis of mental health problems there have been other extreme consequences to the attribution of possession. In September this year four members of the same family were found guilty of the murder of 21-year-old Naila Mumtaz in Birmingham.

Birmingham Crown Court was told that Mrs Mumtaz's in-laws, Zia Ul-Haq and Salma Aslam, who along with her husband Mohammed Mumtaz and brother-in-law Hammad Hassan were convicted of her killing, thought she was possessed by evil spirits.

The trial heard evidence that she was killed as family members attempted to drive out a harmful Jinn spirit.

Naila's brother Nasir Mehmood believes Jinn was used as a way of "explaining away" the death:

"The thinking behind her in-laws was that they would have the body released, take it back home to Pakistan, and say Jinn did it. Jinn killed her. There's no reason to explain anything further than that. People are very susceptible to believe that sort of stuff," he says."

Tony Medhi, a family friend who helped Mr Mehmood through the case, says he is very used to seeing spiritual possession used as a "catch all" for any problems in the British Pakistani community he grew up in:

"...The Jinn concept is used to keep society in its place. If somebody isn't behaving correctly, maybe somebody's behaviour is very extreme, it could be due to some mental illness, or physical disability or something like that, people will turn around and say 'it's Jinn. Jinn has done this to her or him"

"...If somebody was saying I was being abused, or I'm living in horrific conditions, they would automatically silence them by saying 'she's possessed'. I'm talking from personal experiences - family members, neighbours, community members - where women were beaten on the premise that they were possessed when really it was just violence against women."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20357997

I'm reminded of Steven Weinberg's quote...

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"/unsubstantiated ideology.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 130

iThrow

Original post by _gcx

I really can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but are you aware of X-rays, MRI scans, and the fact that it's impossible for an animal to live without a brain?

nope his argument is one the religious peddle all the time. you get it in various forms "have you ever seen wind?" "have you ever actually seen electricity?"

they're certian it's an amazing, cast-iron argument. amusing at first but then when you realize you have to share oxygen with these people it becomes less so.

Reply 131

just ok

Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes

I really want Atheists/ agnostics or anyone who disagrees to completely RESPECT this thread. I can't prevent debate, I'm pretty sure it's inevitable on a thread like this but I just don't want this thread to be 17 pages of insulting dribble on why Prophet Muhammed was a pedophile, or how Islam is unfair to women etc etc

Please keep things respectful and non-judgemental

I've been reading and watching a lot of debates/documentaries on religion/God and his existence (a hobby I seem to have taken up recently), and a lot of the debates are fuelled by complex philosophical arguments and enter this weird realm between Philosophy and Science to back up their points, which is extremely interesting but leaves me a tad bit unsatisfied at times. I honestly really just want to keep this extremely simple.

So I want to ask anyone who believes in God:

1)What religion do you belong to?

2)Have you "experienced" God in any way, shape or form?

3)What was your experience?

4)Do you believe you will meet/experience God one day?

Spoiler

1.Christianity, on its moderate side, I believe there is no special place to serve God. People make places. God makes people,therefore our body is a temple to serve God by our right feelings and actions.
2. Many years, once I fell unconscious
3. Calm, happiness, non-explainable burst of love, freedom; and then terrible feeling ,panicking "I do not want back", disappointment when awoken
4. do not know, I believe that God exists in everyone, so basically I meet him daily, I need to learn to be patient with people. it's hard

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 132

Rohan187

Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes

Spoiler

1. Islam, kind of on the spiritual side of things, focusing my best on the life ahead instead of the material world but not to the point where I disassociate myself entirely from the material. I guess I'm devout, but I make mistakes along the way.

2 and 3. Experienced God? Not really but I have had my prayers answered numerously to the point where I couldn't say it's simply coincidence, the time frame was usually the same , 4 months of me being patient in predicament, then at the brink of it being 5 months I break and vent then the next day the solution comes. Happened way to often. There were other situations that were "miraculous" but it'll be too lengthy to write now.

4. Yes, I follow by the saying "Be in the world like a traveller" I believe eventually I along with everyone else will return to their original "home". After we all taste death.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 133

username2763536

Interesting article. I have to say this sort of thing actually really annoys me.I mean its like the black death, people blamed that on bad odours or on god punishing us.We have made half a century of medical progress since then and people still want to blame illnesses on demons.Its like we are right back where we started.Its utter nonsense.I think that last quote reminds me of jehovahs witnesses blocking blood tranfusions because of their belief that its wrong.

Reply 134

iThrow

Original post by Robby2312

What annoys me further is the people that are actually educated that end up being an apologist for this kinda stuff, all in the name of not being offensive to their beliefs.

I'd fully support not offending somebody for things they cannot help (physical disfigurements, mental illness etc) but if somebody chooses to believe/defend something which is categorically proven to be clap trap then they're fair game imo. What's the alternative? Everyone goes back to believing magic and sacrificing goats over their daughters? (idk but they probably did)

Reply 135

honey55497

Original post by iThrow

lmao please provide me with just one example of this because i have a feeling you're completely incorrect. just one

In the early 1980s, Prof. Keith Moore, formerly an anatomist at the University of Toronto, Canada produced a special edition of his embryology textbook, the standard version of which has been widely used in medical schools around the world. Apparently when he first read what the Qur'an had to say about the development of the human embryo he was "astonished by the accuracy of the statements that were recorded in the 7th century AD, before the science of embryology was established"[1]. Much has subsequently been written by Muslims in an attempt to demonstrate that the Qur'an, which is claimed to be God's ultimate revelation contains statements about how humans develop inside the womb which could not possibly have been known at the time that it was revealed to Muhammed. Indeed, a recent book confirms the extent to which this has been happening:

Dubai's medical school recently introduced a compulsory course for all students: Islamic Medicine. The program seeks to link all modern medicine, including genetics, to the Koran. Such courses have their genesis in orthodox Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have spent considerable sums on medical conferences at which leading Western scientists are asked to confirm that Koranic verses, which seem vague to the layperson, are in fact specific predictors of modern science. Videos and pamphlets from the conferences have been circulated throughout the Muslim world by the Saudis [2].

If it is indeed true that certain verses accurately foretell modern scientific ideas which could not be tested in the seventh century, then it implies that the Qur'an must have had a divine author. It is the intention of this paper to examine what exactly was known about the human embryo at the time of Muhammed in order to see whether any of the theories expressed in the Qur'an were true or indeed well known before this time.

The origins of life according to the Qur'an
There are at least 60 verses which deal explicitly with human reproduction and development, but these are scattered throughout the Qur'an and many of the themes are repeated over and over again, as is common to much of the book. A useful place to begin would be the material out of which we are created. One would expect the Qur'an to be unambiguous about such an elementary matter, but the verses listed show just how much uncertainty there appears to be in our origins. Note that except where indicated the translation used is the translation of Yusuf Ali (Saudi Revised Edition).

Could it be from earth?

11:61 It is He Who hath produced you from the earth

Or dry clay (Arabic Salsaal)?

15:26,28,33 We created man from sounding clay
17:61 ... Thou didst create from clay
32:7 He began the creation of man from clay

Did we come from nothing?

19:67 We created him before out of nothing

No, we did not!

52:35 Were they created of nothing?

Did we come from mud?

23:12 We created man from a product of wet earth (loam) (Pickthall)
23:12 Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay)
38:71 I am about to create a mortal out of mire

Or water?

25:54 It is He Who has created man from water (see also 21:30, 24:45)

Could it be dust?

3:59 He created (Jesus) out of dust
30:20 He created you from dust
35:11 Allah did create you from dust ....

Perhaps we arose from the dead or from one person?

30:19 It is He who brings out the living from the dead
39:6 He created you from a single Person (see also 4:1)

To resolve the considerable ambiguity about what exactly we are made of, it has been suggested that all of the above are complimentary accounts, in the same way that a loaf of bread could be said to be made of dough, flour, carbohydrate or molecules. This evades the issue however. The metaphorical description of God making man out of the dust of the earth is ancient and predates the Qur'an by thousands of years; it is found in the Bible in Genesis 2:7. If this was literal it would be in direct scientific conflict with evolutionists who maintain that life was created out of the oceans, but Muslims maintain that we were created both from the oceans and from earth.

The drop of fluid or semen
In a number of places we are informed that man is created from a drop of fluid (semen, seed or sperm):

16:4 He created man from a drop of fluid (Pickthall)
16:4 He has created man from a sperm-drop
32:8 He made his seed from a quintessence of despised fluid
35:11 ... then from a little fluid (Pickthall)
53:46 (he created) from a drop of seed when it is poured forth (Pickthall)
53:46 From a sperm-drop when lodged (in its place)
56:58 Have ye seen that which ye emit (Pickthall)
56:58 Do you then see? The (human Seed) that ye emit
75:37 Was he not a drop of fluid which gushed forth (Pickthall)
75:37 Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (in lowly form)?
76:2 We create man from a drop of thickened fluid (Pickthall)
76:2 We created Man from a drop of mingled sperm
77:20 Did We not create you from a worthless water (semen, etc.)? (Al-Hilali & Khan)
80:19 From a sperm-drop He hath created him
86:6-7 He is created from a drop emitted - proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.

Could any of this have been known to sixth-century Muslims at the time of Muhammed? Surely that procreation involves the emission of a drop of fluid has been well known from the earliest days of civilization. In Genesis 38:9 the Bible tells us that Onan "spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother". The verses which describe the origin of life as a drop of emitted fluid are therefore no more than a direct observation as to what is released during the act of sexual intercourse. We hardly need to rely upon divine inspiration to inform us of this fact.

In the verses listed above nutfah is used when describing the fluid which gushes out during sexual intercourse and clearly this can only refer to semen. However, Prof. Moore is keen to translate nutfah in sura 76:2 as "mingled fluid" [3] and explains that this Arabic term refers to the male and female fluids which contain the gametes (male sperm and female egg). While it is true that the ancient Greeks would not have been able to see individual sperm or eggs, these only being visible through the microscope, the Qur'an emphatically does not mention sperm or eggs; it simply says nutfah. This can reasonably be translated semen, or at a push, germinal fluid - which was a term used as early as Hippocrates [4] who spoke of male and female reproductive fluids (but obviously could not have been aware of the cells contained in the fluids). If Moore wishes to translate nutfah as germinal fluid, he inadvertently reinforces that the Qur'an is borrowing this term from the Greeks.

Sura 86:6 is interesting since it claims that during the act of sexual intercourse before which a man is created, the "gushing fluid" or semen issues from between the loins and ribs. Semen is apparently coming out of the area around the kidneys and back, which is a real problem for we know that the testicles are the sites of sperm production (although the ancient Greeks were not so convinced. Aristotle for example amusingly believed that they functioned as weights to keep the seminal passages open during sexual intercourse [5]).

The explanation offered by Muslims [6] for the strange statement in this sura relates to the fact that the testicles originally develop from tissue in the area of the kidneys, when the man from whom sperm is gushing forth was himself an embryo. In other words, in a very convoluted fashion the sperm originates from the area between the loins and ribs because that is where the testicles which are producing the sperm originally form.

There is a rather less complicated explanation for this verse however. The Greek physician Hippocrates and his followers taught in the fifth century BC that semen comes from all the fluid in the body, diffusing from the brain into the spinal marrow, before passing through the kidneys and via the testicles into the penis [7]. Clearly according to this view sperm originates from the region of the kidneys, and although there is obviously no substance to this teaching today, it was well-known in Muhammed's day, and shows how the Qur'an could contain such an erroneous statement.

A bust of Hippocrates

Of course it could be argued against all this that the reference to coming from the loins is merely a metaphorical figure of speech. We can find examples of this in sura 7:172 "when thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants" or 4:23 "prohibited to you (for marriage) are ... wives of your sons proceeding from your loins". But if so then it has to be accepted that this is a common usage for Middle Eastern cultures [8]; in the Torah God promises Jacob that "kings shall come out of your loins (chalatzecha)" (Gen 35:11). Later in the Bible a promise is made to David's "son that shall come forth out of your loins" (I Kings 8:19) and in the New Testament Peter refers to the same person as "one from the fruit of his loins" (Greek osphus). However, these are examples of a metaphorical use of the word "loins" (Arabic sulb). Sura 86:6 is clearly talking about the physical act of intercourse; gushing fluid and ribs (tar a'ib) are both very physical and in the context of this verse they clearly refer to the site of semen production as wrongly taught by Hippocrates. So we have found the first example of an incorrect ancient Greek idea re-emerging in the Qur'an.

Embryological development in the Qur'an
Sura 22:5 says "We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then from a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed ... and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babes." Sura 23:13-14 repeats this idea by saying God "placed him as (a drop of) sperm (nutfah) in a place of rest, firmly fixed; then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood (alaqa); then out of that clot We made a (foetus) lump (mudghah), then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed out of it another creature." 75:38 also says man becomes an alaqa and 96:2 says we came from alaq.

Moore however goes further and incredibly he claims in a later edition of his textbook that the Qur'an "states that the resulting organism settles in the womb like a seed, 6 days after its beginning" [9]. This really would be amazing if it was true. Actually the Qur'an says nothing of the sort.

We have to ask what the precise meaning of these words is in order to know whether the verses contain important scientific statements that have only recently been discovered, as Moore and others claim. In comparison with the meaning of nutfah, it is rather more difficult to understand what alaqa means. Many different suggestions have been made: clot (Pickthall, Maulana Muhammed Ali, Muhammed Zafrulla Khan, Hamidullah), small lump of blood (Kasimirski), leech-like clot (Yusuf Ali), and "leech, suspended thing or blood clot" (Moore, op. cit.). Moore suggests that the appearance of an embryo of 24 days' gestation resembles a leech, though this is rather debatable. In side view the developing umbilicus (genetically part of the embryo) is almost as big as the "leech-shaped" part into which a human is formed and the developing placenta (which also consists of tissue that is genetically from the embryo) is much larger than the embryo. It is claimed that the ancient sages would not have been able to see an embryo about 3mm long and describe it as leech-like, but Aristotle correctly described the function of the umbilical cord, by which the embryo "clings" to the uterus wall in the fourth century B.C. [10]. It is impossible to believe the suggestion of Bachir Torki [11] that alaq in 96:2 means links, referring to the gene code of DNA, as this makes a nonsense out of other verses where the word is used, such as 22:5 ("we made you from a drop of sperm, then from that a gene code, then from that a little lump of flesh....").

A 24/25 day embryo at the alaqa stage, approx. 2 mm long

To establish a definition for alaqa we might take a look at the Qamus al-Muheet, one of the most important Arabic dictionaries ever compiled, by Muhammed Ibn-Yaqub al-Firuzabadi (AD 1329-1415) [12]. He says that alaqa has the same meaning as a clot of blood. In 96:2 the word alaq is used, which is both a collective plural and a verbal noun. The latter form conveys the sense of man being created from clinging material or possibly clay, which is consistent with the creation of Adam in the Bible from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7) and some of the other Qur'anic verses listed above. However, the translators of the Qur'an have all translated alaq as "clot" as opposed to "clinging" in 96:2 because the use of the singular alaqa elsewhere forces them to use "clot" here too, despite the attraction for the meaning "clinging" or leech-like which is perhaps more scientifically accurate.

Another source of information are the early Muslim commentators. Ibn Kathir wrote that when the drop of water (nutfah) settled in the womb it stayed there for forty days and then became a red clot (alaqa), staying there for another forty days before turning to mudghah, a piece of flesh without shape or form. Finally it began to take on a shape and form. Both ar-Razi and as-Suyuti [13] claimed that the dust referred both to Adam's creation and to the man's discharge; nutfah referred to the water from the male and alaqa was a solidified piece of blood clot. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (died about AD 1350) wrote that "the foetus is a living or dead babe animal which is sometimes found in the womb of a slaughtered animal, and its blood is congested" [14]. Another great physician, Ibn al-Quff wrote some 13 out of 60 chapters from "On Health Preservation" about embryology and pregnancy. He included a further stage of development one week after conception, the foam stage or raghwah. Up to 16 days the embryo was alaqa (clot) and after 27 to 30 days the clot turns into a lump of meat, mudghah [15]. These dates must be regarded as very approximate but are nevertheless a major improvement on what one of the most reliable Hadiths says about foetal development, as we shall see later.

A 26/27 day embryo, said to resemble a mouthful of flesh, but only 3 mm long

Moving onto the next stage of development, Razi described the mudghah as being a little piece of meat the size of what a man can chew. The idea that mudghah means chewed flesh is a later, and less accurate translation of the word, but the idea has persisted because it is claimed that the somites from which the backbone and other trunk structures develop bear a passing resemblance to teeth marks implanted in plastercine. It must be said that not only is this an imaginative interpretation however, but besides, Moore cannot claim that the mudghah should occur at 26-27 days since at that point the embryo is a mere 4mm long. One would have to wait around 8 weeks before the embryo was the size of chewed flesh (if a mouthful is defined as being 20-30mm wide), which is what mudghah really means. And in the following Hadith, transmitted by Bukhari and Muslim, Muhammed claims that the mudghah stage occurs between days 80 and 120. Yet by this time the foetus is considerably larger than a lump of flesh the size of which a man can chew, and looks very human-like and totally unlike meat.

`Abdullah (b. Mas'ud) reported that Allah's Messenger ... said: "Verily your creation is on this wise. The constituents of one of you are collected for forty days in his mother's womb in the form of blood [sperm?], after which it becomes a clot of blood in another period of forty days. Then it becomes a lump of flesh and forty days later Allah sends his angel to it ..."

Thus according to Muhammed, the drop of sperm remains in the womb for 40 days, then becomes a clot for a further 40 days, then a lump of flesh for 40 days [16]. It has been shown that human sperm can only survive inside a woman's reproductive tract for a maximum of 7 days; at 80 days the embryo has very definitely acquired the shape of a human being and looks nothing like either a clot or a mouthful of flesh.

An eleven week foetus, real size 7.5 cm, but according to Muhammed still at the alaqa stage, a clot of blood

The final stage of human development which the Qur'an describes is the creation of bones, and the clothing of bones with flesh. However, according to modern embryologists including Prof. Moore, the tissue from which bone originates, known as mesoderm, is the same tissue as that from which muscle ("flesh") develops [17]. Thus bone and muscles begin to develop simultaneously, rather than sequentially. Whereas however most of the muscle tissue that we have is laid down before birth, bones continue to develop and calcify (strengthen with calcium) right into one's teenage years. So far from bones being clothed with flesh, it would be more accurate if the Qur'an had said that muscles started to develop at the same time as bones, but completed their development earlier. The idea that bones are clothed with flesh is not only scientifically completely false, but is directly copied from the ancient Greek doctor Galen, as we shall see shortly.

Reply 136

iThrow

Original post by honey55497

redacted to save space

you've certainly wrote a lot but nothing that actually says the qu'ran had any kind of knowledge at all. see, here is where you (and all the others) go wrong. If the qu'ran says a "drop of fluid" or "mud" or something then you can't just say 'Well maybe they meant sperm!'

I could pick any book and pick and choose meanings for words and come to similar conclusions to this. You have to ask yourself why, if the purpose of this qu'ran was to enlighten, then why write it in cryptic riddles? Why not some diagrams and stuff that would actually have been useful? Why is this stuff only discovered in the qu'ran after medical science has already discovered it? Surely it should be the other way around since the qu'ran had a few thousand years head start.

Come back to me with facts not verses from the qu'ran which prove the qu'ran. That's not evidence it's wishful thinking at best and stunning naiveity at worst.

edit; maybe you should give this a read also

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/03/islamic-apologetics-in-the-int

a pretty good quote from it;

How did this crap manage to get published? Once again, we have a disgraceful failure of peer-review to weed out obvious religious propaganda, allowing an Islamic tract to appear under the guise of a scientific article. Just the fact that the references consist almost entirely of citations to pages of the Qur’an ought to have triggered some concern. I’d like to know what went wrong in the reviewing process that allowed garbage like this to make it onto the pages of the International Journal of Cardiology.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 137

Supermonkey92

I am a Christian but have not had any religious experiences.

Reply 138

Plantagenet Crown

Original post by iThrow

Not to mention that he seems to be unaware that the scientist he's quoting, Keith Moore, distanced himself from the so-called embryology miracles once King Abdulazziz university stopped paying him!

Reply 139

iThrow

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

Not to mention that he seems to be unaware that the scientist he's quoting, Keith Moore, distanced himself from the so-called embryology miracles once King Abdulazziz university stopped paying him!

haha yeah i saw it mentioned that it had been over a decade since he disgraced himself but the cited source was behind a paywall so i didn't want to bring it up.

must be a pretty scary environment to do 'research' at that university. produce findings that in any way suggest apostasy and you're off to the the noose.