Quran and Science : Just wanted some comments

[Quoth The Raven]

It's physically impossible for the earth's crust to hold absolutely firm under 5100 KM of molten liquid lava in the outer core. For the slippage to be moving only about 200mm per year I say the mountains are doing a good job. It only makes sense that something must be holding the tectonic plates together, and mountains are the only logical explanation. Unless you guys can offer another explanation of how the plates are held together.

You're acting like mountains are a row of staples in a surgical incision. They're not holding anything together, they're just a geological feature.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

Those countries probably aren't that concerned with trying to claim that part of what Mohammed actually got was a lesson in plate tectonics and embyonic development from an angel, but his poetic heart chose to obscure it in ambiguous language until us clever clogs came along and were able to interpret it for what it really means, using our already aquired scientific knowledge as a point of comparison.

"then We made out of that
lump bones and clothed
the bones with flesh" (part of the verse I quoted).

Please tell how I am trying to fit in words, when I am saying that this verse clearly says: Embryo (called lump as indicated in previous part of verse) grows boned and then bones are covered with muscles.

And do you actually know this: for this verse muslims didnot initiate any claim. Non-muslims called this verse as unscientific previously, as it SCIENCE AT THAT TIME STATED THAT BONES AND MUSCLES GROW AT SAME RATE. Science took a u-turn and Quran was proven right and when muslims try to claim that this was then a certain scientific miracle, they are fitting words in/misinterpreting??????? "Already acquired scientific facts????????

 

[Quoth The Raven]

"then We made out of that
lump bones and clothed
the bones with flesh" (part of the verse I quoted).

Please tell how I am trying to fit in words, when I am saying that this verse clearly says: Embryo (called lump as indicated in previous part of verse) grows boned and then bones are covered with muscles.

And do you actually know this: for this verse muslims didnot initiate any claim. Non-muslims called this verse as unscientific previously, as it SCIENCE AT THAT TIME STATED THAT BONES AND MUSCLES GROW AT SAME RATE. Science took a u-turn and Quran was proven right and when muslims try to claim that this was then a certain scientific miracle, they are fitting words in/misinterpreting??????? "Already acquired scientific facts????????

Tell me, when you make something, do you start at the outside and work your way in, or the inside and work your way out? Ever made anything using an armature? Papier mache pig over a balloon, perhaps? Do you slap together the papier mache first and then try and shove the balloon in amongst it, or do you build on the thing that very clearly gives it the item its structure? It's a basic premise of anything, building, art whatever, that you start with the basic supporting structure and build on that.In the case of vertebrates, basic structure is the skeleton. It's really not that radical an idea. I can't imagine why - lacking any other knowledge - you would think anything otherwise.
Now, back to Professor Keith Moore, who you cited in your very first post, and who is an apparent non-Muslim who thinks Mohammed had a lesson in embryology from god. In his very own book - which is printed in several languages, apparently, he has this to say about bone and muscle development in the human embryo:

"The skeletal and muscle system develops from the mesoderm, some of which becomes mesenchymal cells. These mesenchymal cells make muscles, and also have the ability to differentiate...into osteoblasts which make bone. At first the bones form as cartilage models so that by the end of the sixth week the whole limb skeleton is formed out of cartilage but without any bony calcium as shown in Figure 15-13. (Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human , 4th ed., 1988, p. 346.). While the bone models are forming, myoblasts develop a large muscle mass in each limb bud, separating into extensor and flexor components. In other words, the limb musculature develops simultaneously in situ from the mesenchyme surrounding the developing bones."

Your own reference contradicts your irrefutable scientific proof, and now steadfastly declines to be interviewed on the subject. I'd also suggest you read this article Western scholars find selves touting science of Quran before you decide that non-Islamic scholars have actually given these so called 'facts' the rubber stamping that the movement disseminating them would have you believe.

 

[credance]

Cool link:
Chapter 39 Resources

Warning: For those seeking a male child the Quran has stated that vaginal penetration from the rear will cause a female child to be born.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

Tell me, when you make something, do you start at the outside and work your way in, or the inside and work your way out? Ever made anything using an armature? Papier mache pig over a balloon, perhaps? Do you slap together the papier mache first and then try and shove the balloon in amongst it, or do you build on the thing that very clearly gives it the item its structure? It's a basic premise of anything, building, art whatever, that you start with the basic supporting structure and build on that.In the case of vertebrates, basic structure is the skeleton. It's really not that radical an idea. I can't imagine why - lacking any other knowledge - you would think anything otherwise.
Now, back to Professor Keith Moore, who you cited in your very first post, and who is an apparent non-Muslim who thinks Mohammed had a lesson in embryology from god. In his very own book - which is printed in several languages, apparently, he has this to say about bone and muscle development in the human embryo:

Your own reference contradicts your irrefutable scientific proof, and now steadfastly declines to be interviewed on the subject. I'd also suggest you read this article Western scholars find selves touting science of Quran before you decide that non-Islamic scholars have actually given these so called 'facts' the rubber stamping that the movement disseminating them would have you believe.

Well, finally a post worthy of time-spending.:yes:
First of all, check my original post. Keith Moore was referenced specifically, on the issue that the embryo in it's early stages looks like a chewed lump (referred as mudgah in quran) and resembles a leech. As far as his comment on bone growing simultaneously, check the latest edition of his book and the part of Dr. Naik's speech I have provided below.

Now initially, you told us that without any knowledge one may get the idea that muscles come later. Argument is pointless, since I will never agree with you here nor you with me. Therefore, I seek your comment on Quran calling embryo a mudgah chewed like substance and alaqah leech like substance etc. . Can these too be called mere guesswork? They are scientifically accurate.

As far as the link you have provided: I don't know whether the matter has been written by a biased person or no. What is the authenticity of this article, is there any reliable source? I read a part, where scientists claimed to have taken verses out-of-context. Explain to me what is out-of-context here in the verses I have provided.
I am also adding this part of Zakir Naik's speech, which I hope will clear your doubts:
"Later on the Qur’an says… ‘We made the ‘Mutga’ into ‘Izama’…bones - Then clothed the bones with flesh.’ Dr. William Campbell said, and I do agree with him, that… ‘The precursors of the muscles and the cartilagees… that is the bones, they form together - I agree with that. Today embryology tells us that the primordia of the muscles and the bones - they form together between the 25th and the 40th day, which the Qur`an refers to as the stage of ‘mudga.’ But they are not developed… they are not developed. Later on, at the end of the seventh week, the embryo takes form of human appearance - then the bones are formed. Today modern embryology says the bones are formed after the 42nd day, and it gives an appearance of a skeletal thing. Even at this stage when the bones are formed, the muscles are not formed. Later on, after the 7th week and the starting of 8th week, are the muscles formed. So Qur’an is perfect in describing first ‘Alaqa’, then ‘Mutga’, then ‘Izama’, then clothed with flesh, and when they form - the description is perfect"

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

Here is one part of a lesson on plate tectonics that describes how subduction zones work. This is an example of what happens at most mountain ranges on or near continental coasts, such as the Andes in South America and the Rockies in North America. In these cases, the mountain range does virtually nothing to prevent plate movement.

This page in the same lesson shows types of plate movements:

- divergent plate boundaries. These are typical of mid-ocean ridges (i.e. long underwater mountain ranges). In these cases, the existence of mountains does nothing to stop or reduce the plate movement.

- convergent plate boundaries (note: oceanic-continental boundary shown). These are typical of coastal mountain ranges. In these cases, the existence of mountains also does not stop or reduce plate movement.

Also (but not shown in that lesson) are continental-continental plate boundaries, which created mountain ranges like the Himilayas in Inda/Tibet. You can find an example of these here. In 10 million years since the Himilayas formed, the India plate is still moving into the Eurasia plate without any sign of stopping or slowing, so it seems, IMO, that the tallest mountain range in the world has done little to act as a "peg" or a "stud".

Back to that lesson, this page shows a map of the worldwide distribution of earthquakes. If you check this against a map of world mountain ranges, you'll see that earthquakes tend to happen in mountainous areas.

As my knowledge in this thing is insufficient, I cannot comment properly myself.
However, I do know that the word used in the verse is ‘tamide bikum’ which means "shake with you" . The arabic word for earth quakes is "zilzaal" check it up in any dictionary. Now I found this part of Zakir Naik's debate with William Campbell, where william campbell raised this issue and Zkair Naik answered and Dr. Campbell was unable to produce a counter-argument:

***MOD EDIT***

Zakir Naik - William Campbell Debatae

I know it's long but at least answers your queries.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As my knowledge in this thing is insufficient, I cannot comment properly myself.
However, I do know that the word used in the verse is ‘tamide bikum’ which means "shake with you" . The arabic word for earth quakes is "zilzaal" check it up in any dictionary.

No need - I trust your translation.

Now I found this part of Zakir Naik's debate with William Campbell, where william campbell raised this issue and Zkair Naik answered and Dr. Campbell was unable to produce a counter-argument:
". And Qur’an says in Surah Nabaa, Ch. No. 78, Verse No. 6 and 7…‘We have made the Earth as an expanse…. (Arabic) ….and the mountains as stakes.’ The Qur’an does not say, mountains were thrown up as stakes… mountain as stakes. Arabic word ‘Autaad’ means ‘stakes’… meaning ‘tent peg’. And today we have come to know in the study of modern Geology, that mountain has got deep roots. This was known in the second half of the 19th century. And the superficial part that we see of the mountain, is a very small percentage. The deeper part is within - Exactly like a stake how it is driven in the ground. You can only see a small part on top… the majority is down in the ground - or like a tip of the ice berg…you can see the tip on the top and about 90% is beneath water.

This sounds fishy. In the case of an iceberg, you have one distinct thing (ice) floating in another distinct thing (water), and a clear boundary between them. In the case of a mountain, you have an indistinct line between rock (the mountain) and other rock (the underlying material). I don't know the Arabic definition of the equivalent term for "mountain", but as far as I know in English, the mountain is usually defined as the section of rock that's above the surrounding level, not below.

The Qur’an says in Surah Gashiya, Ch. 88, Verse No. 19, and Surah Naziat, Ch. No. 79, Verse No. 32 ….. (Arabic) …. And We have made the mountains standing firm on the Earth’ - Made the mountains standing firm on the Earth. Today after modern Geology has advanced, and Dr. William Campbell said that… ‘By the theory of Platectonics - It was propounded in 1960, which gives rise to mountain ranges.’ The Geologists today, do say that the mountains give stability to the Earth - Not all Geologists, but many do say.

[/FONT]

I don't know how the phrase "mountains give stability to the Earth" would have any real meaning for a geologist, let alone know of any of them who make this claim. Your article mentions Dr. Frank Press making this statement in a book - do you know what book?

And Qur’an says in Surah Luqman, Ch. 31, Verse No. 10, as well as Surah Nahl, Ch. No. 16 Verse No. 15…‘We have put on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it would shake with you. It is ‘tamide bikum’…‘Shake with you’, Indicating, if the mountains were not there, if you would have walked, if you would have moved, even the earth would have moved with you - If you would have swayed, even the earth would have swayed with you. And we know normally when we walk on the Earth, the Earth does not shake, and the reason for this is, according to Dr. Frank Press and Dr. Najjat who is from

Saudi Arabia, and he wrote a full book on the Geological concepts in the Qur’an, answering almost every thing what Dr. William Campbell has said - in detail.

I know of no mechanism by which earthquakes prevent either earthquakes or movement of the Earth. In fact, rock conducts vibration and transmits the energy of an earthquake much more efficiently than liquid mantle, and as I mentioned, the Indian plate is still moving into the Eurasian plate, despite the Himilayas.
[/FONT]

[QUOTE=MFaraz_Hayat;1033144]And in reply to the statement…‘That if mountains prevent earthquakes, how come you find earthquakes in mountainous regions ?’ The reply is, that - If I say that medical doctors, they prevent the sickness and disease in a human being, and if someone argues…‘If doctors prevent the sickness and diseases in a human being, how come you find more sick people in the hospitals, where there are more doctors than at home - where there are no doctors."

In the case of sick people in hospitals, the sick people are attracted there because of the doctors and the care that they receive. Are you implying that mountains somehow attract earthquakes?

I know it's long but at least answers your queries.

I think it created more questions than answers.

But based on your last few posts, I take your argument to be that your claim is that mountains prevent some sort of shaking or movement of the Earth, but not necessarily earthquakes. Is this correct? If so, I don't think you've shown why we should believe this to be the case.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

No need - I trust your translation.

[/font]

This sounds fishy. In the case of an iceberg, you have one distinct thing (ice) floating in another distinct thing (water), and a clear boundary between them. In the case of a mountain, you have an indistinct line between rock (the mountain) and other rock (the underlying material). I don't know the Arabic definition of the equivalent term for "mountain", but as far as I know in English, the mountain is usually defined as the section of rock that's above the surrounding level, not below.



I don't know how the phrase "mountains give stability to the Earth" would have any real meaning for a geologist, let alone know of any of them who make this claim. Your article mentions Dr. Frank Press making this statement in a book - do you know what book?



I know of no mechanism by which earthquakes prevent either earthquakes or movement of the Earth. In fact, rock conducts vibration and transmits the energy of an earthquake much more efficiently than liquid mantle, and as I mentioned, the Indian plate is still moving into the Eurasian plate, despite the Himilayas.


In the case of sick people in hospitals, the sick people are attracted there because of the doctors and the care that they receive. Are you implying that mountains somehow attract earthquakes?


I think it created more questions than answers.

But based on your last few posts, I take your argument to be that your claim is that mountains prevent some sort of shaking or movement of the Earth, but not necessarily earthquakes. Is this correct? If so, I don't think you've shown why we should believe this to be the case.

Read this article: Mountain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Look under the GEOLOGY section to find info on "deep roots" of mountains.

The name of the book was mentioned in the post,"Earth" .

The verse is not talking about earthquakes but rather stability of earth.

The last part tells us that often people with diseases are found in hospitals and it is wrong to say that Hospital is the cause of disease. Similarly, earthquakes are in mountainous region but this does not mean that earthquakes are caused by mountains. As you told us they are caused by "plate movement".

 

[Peace4all]

Cool link:
Chapter 39 Resources

Warning: For those seeking a male child the Quran has stated that vaginal penetration from the rear will cause a female child to be born.

lol no it didnt- please quote ur refrences :slap:

 

[Peace4all]

Your analogy doesn't actually describe what's happening. Mountains are very heavy and an entire mountain range is even more so, but the forces involved in continental drift are tremendous. Despite the weight of the Himilayas, they continue to rise and the Indian plate continues to move toward the Eurasian plate.

Like I said before: It's physically impossible for the earth's crust to hold absolutely firm under 5100 KM of molten liquid lava in the outer core. For the slippage to be moving only about 200mm per year I say the mountains are doing a good job. It only makes sense that something must be holding the tectonic plates together, and mountains are the only logical explanation. Unless you guys can offer another explanation of how the plates are held together.

I'm not completely sure I understand the point you're trying to make. You think that the subducted plate acts as some sort of anchor for the continental plate above it?

correct

 

[Peace4all]

there still is one dropped argument that no one has seemed to answer yet: if mountains don’t hold the tectonic plate… what does?

 

[Orthodox]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin
I'm not completely sure I understand the point you're trying to make. You think that the subducted plate acts as some sort of anchor for the continental plate above it?
correct

correct

Wrong. Dead wrong. It's hard to imagine how you could be any more wrong. Subduction is considered to be the major force behind tectonic plate movement - NOT an anchor for it. Incidentally, where did you get the idea for this anyway? Or, did this explanation just seem like the "only logical explanation" like you claimed for mountains "how the plates are held together".

I say the mountains are doing a good job. It only makes sense that something must be holding the tectonic plates together, and mountains are the only logical explanation. Unless you guys can offer another explanation of how the plates are held together.

there still is one dropped argument that no one has seemed to answer yet: if mountains don’t hold the tectonic plate… what does?

What do you mean there is a dropped argument? You have yet to offer any evidence for it to begin with. It is not a valid argument. It's an idea you (or the Qur'an) had which you then demand people hurry about proving wrong otherwise you'll claim it is correct. That's not how these things work. Give US some evidence.

As it is, mountains don't hold the tectonic plates together. My understanding is that the plates don't need holding together. Are you suggesting that if it wasn't for mountains that the plates would fall apart? Here in Australia we have hardly any mountains and are slap bang in the middle of a tectonic plate. We don't have any problems with earthquakes or plate instability though.

Here's something to consider about all of the Quranic verses that apparently indicate a 1400yr old knowledge of what has only recently been discovered by science. Why are they all so ambiguously worded? Did Allah have some kind of word limit that he had to keep under? When he is allegedly describing the big bang or cosmic expansion (as some have claimed) why couldn't he have used 5-10 more words to make the supposed purpose of the verse clearer? I suspect (as do many many others) that the Qur'an is just like any of the other "holy books" from the desert religions, and references nothing that a desert dweller 1400-2600yrs ago would not have commonly known.

The truth is that all these verses have either bad science (embryos as "clots", mountains as "pegs") or incredibly imprecise language into which many things can be read.

 

[Peace4all]

Wrong. Dead wrong. It's hard to imagine how you could be any more wrong. Subduction is considered to be the major force behind tectonic plate movement - NOT an anchor for it. Incidentally, where did you get the idea for this anyway? Or, did this explanation just seem like the "only logical explanation" like you claimed for mountains "how the plates are held together".

It was sarcasm- if nothing holds mountains together then maybe the sub ducted plate can hold weight.

What do you mean there is a dropped argument? You have yet to offer any evidence for it to begin with. It is not a valid argument. It's an idea you (or the Qur'an) had which you then demand people hurry about proving wrong otherwise you'll claim it is correct. That's not how these things work. Give US some evidence.

Fair Enough, Read this article: Mountain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Look under the GEOLOGY section to find info on "deep roots" of mountains.

 

[Peace4all]

Eureka- I found a credible source:

Where continents are thicker, as in mountain ranges, the crust sinks
deeper into the mantle; thereby holding both the crust and the mantle together.

Reference: (General Science, Carolyn Sheets, Robert Gardner, Samuel F. Howe; Allyn and Bacon Inc. Newton, Massachusetts, 1985, s. 305)

 

[Peace4all]

I kinda feel that all of the scientific miracles needs to be covered deeply... i think im gonna start a new thread

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin
I'm not completely sure I understand the point you're trying to make. You think that the subducted plate acts as some sort of anchor for the continental plate above it?
correct



Wrong. Dead wrong. It's hard to imagine how you could be any more wrong. Subduction is considered to be the major force behind tectonic plate movement - NOT an anchor for it. Incidentally, where did you get the idea for this anyway? Or, did this explanation just seem like the "only logical explanation" like you claimed for mountains "how the plates are held together".





What do you mean there is a dropped argument? You have yet to offer any evidence for it to begin with. It is not a valid argument. It's an idea you (or the Qur'an) had which you then demand people hurry about proving wrong otherwise you'll claim it is correct. That's not how these things work. Give US some evidence.

As it is, mountains don't hold the tectonic plates together. My understanding is that the plates don't need holding together. Are you suggesting that if it wasn't for mountains that the plates would fall apart? Here in Australia we have hardly any mountains and are slap bang in the middle of a tectonic plate. We don't have any problems with earthquakes or plate instability though.

Here's something to consider about all of the Quranic verses that apparently indicate a 1400yr old knowledge of what has only recently been discovered by science. Why are they all so ambiguously worded? Did Allah have some kind of word limit that he had to keep under? When he is allegedly describing the big bang or cosmic expansion (as some have claimed) why couldn't he have used 5-10 more words to make the supposed purpose of the verse clearer? I suspect (as do many many others) that the Qur'an is just like any of the other "holy books" from the desert religions, and references nothing that a desert dweller 1400-2600yrs ago would not have commonly known.

The truth is that all these verses have either bad science (embryos as "clots", mountains as "pegs") or incredibly imprecise language into which many things can be read.

Well, I did some research on the net and there is no denying that mountains indeed have deep roots. If you are unsure search Google on topic of isostasy and mountain formation etc. I think that peace4all is trying to imply is, that as we all know that large parts of earth's lithosphere is floating on the underlying layer, the asthenosphere, the mountains having deep roots ( look at it logically) having deep roots, would hinder movements caused by such floating. ( i took some info from information available on online Britannica)
As far as language of Quran is concerned, well it's in the form of poetry. The Quran was not only revealed for this particular age you know. When it was revealed, particularly in Arabia, literature was given most importance. Infact, Arabs were at height of literature and in arrogance used to call, those unable to speak Arabic "dumb" . Thus, the Quran was revealed to show that their literature was nothing compared to Quran's literary excellence.
You are saying that "pegs/stakes" is wrongly used. The word is being used to describe mountains and as I have made clear in my previous posts, mountains do have deep roots. Now consider a stake, it is driven in the ground such that majority of it's part is beneath the surafce, and so do mountains. Stakes and pegs are used as comparisons to "deep roots" of mountains. And seeing that mountains indeed have deep roots, which in fact are more longer than the part above land, the Quran is completely accurate.
The other part was congealed clot of blood being compared with embryo in Quran. First of all, embryo is surrounded in it's early stages by numerous capillaries giving it appearance of clot of blood. ( The verse is only talking about the appearance of embryo at that stage not it's function). Secondly, to the word Alaqah there are two more meanings, something that clings and leech like substance. The embryo in it's early stages does cling to wall of uterus and it's appearance is indeed like that of a leech. Even, if one meaning is correct then the verse is correct, as according to Comparative religion analysis, when we are investigating a religious text and word having multiple meanings is used, the most appropriate are chosen and rest are discarded. Thus, if you think clot of blood is not appropriate there are two more meanings which are scientifically accurate.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

I wnat a yes or no answer.

Is the quran a science textbook?

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

I wnat a yes or no answer.

Is the quran a science textbook?

Sometimes the answer is beyond a simple yes or no. Quran is not a science text book but indeed contains signs, to prove it's validity.
It has scientific facts within it, expressed in a poetic form. However, it is not used as a "science text book" but rather a Book Of Guidance.

 

[Peace4all]

I wnat a yes or no answer.

Is the quran a science textbook?

Im not impressed- i expected better from you. It doesnt matter if the Quran is a "Science Textbook", Allah SWT put miracles in the Quran as evidence of his existence and to prove the validity of his message.

 

[wednesday]

I wnat a yes or no answer.

Is the quran a science textbook?

Of course it is not, to claim it is would be rediculous:slap:

The scientific facts are questionable considering their poetic form which makes them rather confusing and open ended. Also, it was written 1600 years ago before the age of modern science so im pretty sure it's not all that reliable.