Anti-science madness

airmano wrote: @Ahmad Airmano: So again: clay ≠ water ≠ dust ≠ clotted blood => Internal contradiction. The Quran is obviously inconsistent. Ahmad: If you don't give specific verses of such conflicts, I guess, we are only wasting time by hitting in darkness. IMHO, you are only hitting on variation by different translators interchanging use of clay/ dust, but that is only my guess work and can't be sure of your actual issue in conflict, if any. Nope, using the link I gave it took less than one minute for each term: Clay: Al-An'aam, Chapter #6, Verse #2 Dust: Al-Kahf, Chapter #18, Verse #37 Water: An-Noor, Chapter #24, Verse #45 Clot: Al-Alaq, Chapter #96, Verse #2 There are much more, the fact that you do not even make an attempt to look for it is not a good sign. --------------------------------------------------------- Ahmad: What if I say clay = mixture of naturally occurring elements and if I say everything (living or non living) in this world is made of clay, am I wrong? Airmano: Yes, indeed, you'd be wrong ! Marshmallows do not only consist of carbon. So if I take your logic to the [bitter] end I'd be entitled to say "we are made out of marshmallows". (actually marshmallows would definitely be closer to the truth than clay). Sure it's humbug and you know it. Ahmad: Nope, your example is far from my explanation. Consider that Clay is a mixture of varying constituent elements in its composition and if any one of its elements is removed from the mixture, the mixture would still be called, more or less, as clay. On the contrary, your "Marshmallow" is a mixture of very well defined constituent elements (btw what's the chemical formula for Marshmallows?) and if anyone of its element is removed from it, the mixture would not be called as 'Marshmallow" (and you would definitely not like to eat it anymore) Again, plain wrong. The term "Clay" is defined as " hydrous (aluminium) phyllosilicates". Furthermore there are structural/crystallographic/mineralogic classification of the different types of clay. Take for instance the silicon away and you have no clay anymore (not even to talk about the structural change). Opposite to that: Take away the few atoms of Silicon that there are in a healthy living human and -surprise- you still have a perfectly healthy and living human. So again: We are not made out of clay. The Quran remains wrong. .

Good that you have provided specific reference so that we should be more focussed in discussing every verse in its right context and see how we can understand the whole message.
( I shall be using Yusuf Ali�s translation).

Now by your own definition of clay being �hydrous (aluminium) phyllosilicates�, you must agree that it is mixture of various elements / compounds and water being one of the dominant one. Now, suffice it would be show how this is important to life. For this kindly refer to clay_minerals. So, by this, I guess, first 3 of the verses are taken care of unless you insist on arguing about the use of word �dust�. If this is your concern, again, you would realize that not that it is utterly wrong (where dust can be seen simply a vaporized form of clay), but that in the verse it is a quotation of a person in a narration of a story about the people of the cave. So, technically not exactly the words of Allah. As for the last verse (96:02), the accurate translation of word �Alaq� is �a clinging substance� and there is possibility of translational error based on translators� own intellect.

airmano wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Airmano: It doesn't help: There is still no clay in our body nor its constituent elements. It's plain wrong Ahmad: May be you could explain about the decaying process of flesh into soil and through regenerative process, birth of new life in this world or simply put, Law of conservation of Mass. If the total human population of this world is ever increasing, from where the extra mass is coming? Please don't tell me the Neutrino effect. Ahmad you're a strange guy. On one side you throw terms like "Schwarzschild radius" or "gravitational singularity" into the discussion and on the other hand you ask utterly primitive questions like this one. I have great difficulties in getting the two "Ahmads" to match: Either you look up terms like "Schwarzschild radius" and "gravitational singularity" and use them without understanding their meaning or you ask questions like the one above simply to wear me out. If you really want to know the answer to your question I'm willing to help, if it is just to fool me it is a waste of time.

It would have been better if you had replied rather than embarking upon emotional hitting. If you think anything is trivial, why should it be so difficult to answer?

Airmano wrote: -------------------------------------------------------------- Airmano on the Ark story: First you must have been looking hard to find a translation that omits "creature" in "each creature". But even your translation equally says: "We said: "Embark therein, of each kind two, male and female" So what does "each" mean if not "each" ? Is your prophet trying to tell me that a guy called Noah saved a pair of snails from his back yard ? Ahmad: As I said, if you are fixated by the biblical account, no matter what explanation I provide, your mind wouldn't accept the alternate understanding. Nevertheless, I shall try one more time by asking you to consider an example in which you suddenly realize that your house is on fire and realizing the gravity of the situation you ask your family member (whosoever he/she may be) to please evacuate everyone from the house. Now, would this imply each and every creature in your house to be evacuated? Maybe those mosquitoes, ants, or other bio-creatures co-living in your house without much of your approval, should also be evacuated? I don't think so. What I am hinting at is that this phrase of 'each' could imply those pets whose number of females are usually more than their male counter parts such as cows, hens, goats etc for their obvious benefits such as milk or eggs etc. But, in such situations where the capacity of the boat is limited, one can't afford the luxury of all animals so only the very essentials are required to brought into it. This implies a pair of each (household) animal should be sufficient to sustain life for longer periods. I think, this understanding is very natural especially with reference to the example that I tried to explain. You wouldn't be worried about the crawling creatures under your mattress, in case of a fire emergency. Would you? Your attempt to explain the problem away doesn't make it any better, essentially you really reduce it to the snails: The case you constructed could have been easily expressed by modifying "Embark therein, of each kind two, male and female" to something like "Take your animals along". Obviously this is not what is written in the Quran. Or do you think that God gives misleading advice to his prophets ?

Your proposal fails to account for emergency condition in which only essential animals and not all animals are to be taken along. Remember usually the number of domestic female animals in a household are more than their male counter parts for obvious reasons. Therefore, in emergency, instead of asking for �all animals� only �pair� of animal should suffice for the situation.

airmano wrote: Furthermore: If Noah had really followed the (unwritten) advice and took only one male and one female of each (domestic) animal he would have been in trouble if one of them had died.

Well, the issue of �life and death� is not external to the concept of God but exists within it. Do you want to argue about it?

airmano wrote: Even worse if he had taken a couple of each animal on earth: There would have been dozens of species being wiped out due to the likelihood of one of the two dying during the trip.

What is this fanciful and imaginative scenario? Who says the flood was going to wipe out the entire world wiping out entire living creatures of earth? Where are you reading from? If not from Quran, then from where other than your childhood biblical stories?

airmano wrote: It is funny to watch that in order to embellish the [logic of] the Quran the wildest theories are brought forward - which you would never accept under normal circumstances. So, no, neither have you found a [better] explanation nor I'm not "blinded by the bible" and I still have no reason to assume that "each" ≠ "each". The rest is (wild) speculation. By the way, most of the translators implicitly agree on my logic by adding [creature] after "each".

I have no issue with adding �creatures� in the translation as long as they might not be understood to mean every animal in the house including �snails under your bed�. I would again refer you to my example of emergency evacuation scenario which is totally different than biblical account of �Saving the life on earth�.

airmano wrote: In the end you are trying to bend (corrupt ?) the Quran until it fits your desired interpretation. May be that stretching the meaning of arabic word "each" is the next attempt ?

It would be my bad, if I ever do such a thing and would definitely request you to highlight this mistake for my own good. However, with my explanation as presented above, I hope I have not yet committed this mistake.

airmano wrote: Ah, by the way: you also didn't react on my logic: "Mount Judi! = several hundreds of meters high. Looking at the kind of flood you mention (monsoon): have you ever seen an area filled to several hundreds of meter of water (high) by monsoon rain ? No ! And since we are already there: As you rightly comment the same story shows up in the bible but also in older tellings (Thorah, Babylonians) Obviously Mohamed was not the first one to get impressed by it.

I am sorry from where this "Mount Judi! = several hundreds of meters high� comes in from Quran? Or is it again your own imaginative thinking based upon bib��.?

airmano wrote: Now, if God wanted to address this message to all mankind why did he (supposedly) protect Mohamed's version only ?

I don�t know what do you mean by this? But if I understand your question correctly, Quran came to correct the misunderstandings of the �People of the book� about the concept of God and such narrations are only the tools to remind them of His favours showered upon them. This and such other stories in Quran have multiple lessons drawn out of them for the betterment of humans.

airmano wrote: ------------------------------------------------------------ Ahmad: I think you have not provided any evidence to support your hypothesis that Quran is wrong. Co-development implies start of both bone and flesh structure together which is not correct especially if it has to start with single cell. Isn�t it? Airmano: That cells diversify got nothing to do with with bones and muscles developing in parallel. (opposite to the Quran that suggests a sequential bones -> muscles development). Did you make an honest attempt to inform yourself about this matter ? Ahmad: You haven't yet quoted any verse of the Quran and neither the scientific evidence to support your allegation. So, please complete your homework before you ask others. I knew it. As soon as your believe system gets threatened you refuse any collaboration. OK, Al-Muminoon, Chapter #23, Verse #14: Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh, then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So the time structure is clearly indicated as successive steps: a)"Nutfah" -> b) thick coagulated blood -> c) This clot transforms to lump of flesh -> d)This flesh transforms into to bones -> e) These bones stay and get surrounded by flesh (muscles), (followed by more mumble mumble). So can you tell me any scientific source confirming: c->d and d->e ? Sure you can't and you will send the problem back to me. BTW: b) is already perfect nonsense in itself. More when I have time: Airmano

Only half the answer where you forgot to present your counter evidence to prove this wrong! I would reserve my full reply till then,

best regards.


Edited by AhmadJoyia - 15 September 2016 at 11:13am

You kidding? What exactly do you claim we should see in the plates if they moved fast in a past with different forces and laws in place??

airmano wrote: @Ahmad: The discussion seems to go out of bonds. I therefore think it is important to summarize the core POV's before we go any further: ================================================-- A) The Quran claims we are made out of clay, but elsewhere that "we are made out of dust" or equally: "We are made out of clotted blood" and "We are made out of water".

I don�t think it�s good to distort the actual statements in verses with your implied ones and that too within quotation marks. Am I being non-cooperative here, if I point out a scholarly mistake?

airmano wrote: Airmano: 1) Since clay ≠ water ≠ dust ≠ clotted blood => Internal contradiction. The Quran is obviously inconsistent. 2) The defining element in clay is Silicon. In our body there is neither clay in its molecular/crystalline form nor even the element Silicon (functionally) present. The statement "we are made out of clay" is thus equally untenable. ------------------------- Defense Ahmad: Water is an important element for life. - Clay contains water (and thus a key ingredient of life). The Quran is thus right by saying "we are made out of clay". - The same applies for [clotted] blood and obviously water itself. - Dust contains clay which itself contains water, so it is also correct to say "we are made out of dust".

Not the whole truth. I said clay is a mixture of many elements and compounds. Generally, it implies every naturally occurring element, and more specifically, an earthly matter. Secondly, I did highlight some variations in the translation of the �Alaq� as �clinging matter� rather than �clot�. Thirdly, in an evolutionary process involving different stages, each stage can be stated to have its own starting point. Thus when life first evolved on earth, its starting point (from inorganic matter) could entirely be different than the one we now observe in the reproduction cycle of living beings.

airmano wrote: ================================================-- B) Noah's Ark and the verse 11:40:[So it was], until when Our command came and the oven overflowed, We said, "Load upon the ship of each [creature] two mates and your family, except those about whom the word has preceded, and [include] whoever has believed." But none had believed with him, except a few. Airmano: It is nonsensical to believe that a stone age bloke could have built a ship holding a couple of all existent creatures on earth (+ the impossibility to collect them). For a [worldwide] flood there is not enough water on earth anyway. ---------------------------- Defense Ahmad: Who says that the "each" in 11:40: "Load upon the ship of each [creature] two mates" meant "each animal on earth" ? It could have meant (as an instruction to Noah in order to survive): "a pair of each of your household animals " [and that this detail was omitted in the Quran].

This is correct.

airmano wrote: In this case it would have been perfectly possible to build such a (small) ship. The flooding would have been local only, hence there would have been enough water for it as well.

I didn�t say that, neither Quran specifies the size of the boat. From where did you get it?

airmano wrote: =================================================== Would you agree on this summary ? Airmano

Not really. See my amendments & explanations under each topic. Best regards.

airmano wrote: @Ahmad Not the whole truth. I said clay is a mixture of many elements and compounds. Generally, it implies every naturally occurring element, and more specifically, an earthly matter. I don't really see what you try to say with this sentence. Let me nevertheless give it a try (and feel free to put it in a more concise form): Ahmad: Clay contains almost all elements of the periodic table => Therefore also those that are present in our body (albeit in completely different proportions) => So it is correct to say "we are made out of clay"

Change it to say
Ahmad: Clay contains almost all naturally occurring elements and compounds => Therefore also those that are present in our body (albeit in completely different proportions) => So it is correct to say "we are made out of clay"

airmano wrote: ------------------------------------------------------ Secondly, I did highlight some variations in the translation of the �Alaq� as �clinging matter� rather than �clot�. I don't see what this translation should add in value. Saying "we are made out of some sticky stuff" is almost as precise (iaw. worthless) as saying: "We are made out of something". -----------------------------------------------------

I would rather say "something that sticks"

airmano wrote: Thirdly, in an evolutionary process involving different stages, each stage can be stated to have its own starting point. Thus when life first evolved on earth, its starting point (from inorganic matter) could entirely be different than the one we now observe in the reproduction cycle of living beings. Very good ! You are perfectly right, there are even theories that life did indeed originate in clay [-like structures] or look here. It is for the first time you express that life may have formed without God-screwdriver but out of naturally occurring substances and processes.

I don't subscribe anything "naturally occurring" to be out side the domain of God. He has power of all things, in this uni/multiverse.

airmano wrote: Having said so, even if this turned out to be true, do you really think the wording "we are made out of clay" would reflect the truth ? Wouldn't you choose a more precise sentence like: "Clay played a key role at the origin of life" ? Airmano

IMHO, your "precision" is only relative to, at max today's scientific knowledge. What if this knowledge changes drastically over next few decades or centuries, as some of the theories, that you too quoted, are already indicating. Thus for an ever lasting book of knowledge whose audience vary (in all types and kinds) over centuries, this is the best selection of the word. Best regards.