PZ Myers proves the Quran is correct

[faro0485]

The verse is indicating that it's getting bigger, but the use of izama is telling us that it is becoming elongated as it gets bigger. And that without the bones, it would be like a blob.

[bubka]

Of the three primary germ layers (ECTODERM, ENDODERM, MESODERM) that produces tissues, then organs, and systems. Bone forms from MESODERM, MESODERM forms after ECTODERM (skin and CNS) and ENDODERM (gut, respiration).

[mythinktube]

It really must be a life long commitment to come up with the mental gymnastics required to make the logical fallacies in the Qu'ran fit with science and rationality

[robertmike57]

Must hurt having to retranslate your chicken scratchings to make your dirty filthy book conform to what is now known.

[BachTantra]

the miraculous changing of the meaning and translation of the quran to fit modern science again....so its not a clot anymore?

[hefty1986]

em who is this man who says it foms together? iv never herd of him? what about all the scitents and Dr that said otherwise?..

[GodzApostle]

@hefty1986 it absolutely does form together as embryology has shown and the quran says exactly that.

there is no ambiguity in the Qur'an in terms of embryology.

[anatoxin]

@leptismagna10 NOWHERE in the Quran is it claimed that God is Arab, nor is it ever claimed the Allah is the God the Arabs alone , rather Rabbul 'Alameen

Some people inspite of knowing how to read have their hearts sealed . You seem to be one of them

PS: I am not stalking you !

[chinamanspeakenlis]

ermm...but pz totally destroys kuran there... i think you werent listening to him. change your vid title to " pz proves kuran is Bull sh!t".

[GodzApostle]

@chinamanspeakenlis did you even watch the video? this man has been studying arabic literature for decades and you seem to think hes not correct in his commentary? make a reply video and prove him wrong then.

[leptismagna10]

the quran is just poetry, some of it good and some terrible. It is a product of arab civilization and culture of the 7th and 8th centuries which shows through its discussion of the politics of the time and people's understanding of the natural world at the time. it is in no way connected to some cosmic supreme being who knows all.

such a being does not exist. sorry muslims, either keep your faith to yourself or watch it being ridiculed.

[leptismagna10]

i speak arabic, i live in a muslim country, and i know the quran is bullshit. its not a question of not knowing arabic or not, because god, if he exists, would not be an arab...but the muslims believe he is...LOL

[LearnQuranicArabic]

I got plenty of criticisms from those who don't know Arabic, which I expected because people just don't want to believe. can somebody please produce a video response or something.

[farzanatasneem]

@LearnQuranicArabic "In essence, 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 realized once in the whole universe.Otherwise some metaphysical powers beyond our definition must have acted in its formation.To accept the latter is not appropriate for the scientific cause. WE THUS HAVE TO LOOK INTO THE FIRST HYPOTHESIS.." (emphasis mine) Ali Demirsoy

[farzanatasneem]

"It is not that the methods and institutions of

science somehow compel us accept a material

explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on

the contrary,that we are forced by our a priori

adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of

investigation and a set of concepts that produce material

explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no

matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.... CONTD

[farzanatasneem]

CONTD:

.....Moreover, that materialism is

absolute, so we cannot

allow a Divine Foot in the door "

Richard C. Lewontin from Harvard

University "The Demon-Haunted World,"

The New York Review of Books, January

9, 1997, p. 28.

[farzanatasneem]

The term "a priori" that Lewontin uses here is quite

important. This philosophical term refers to a

presupposition not based on any experimental

knowledge. A thought is "a priori" when you consider it

to be correct and accept it as so even if there is no

information available to confirm it. As the evolutionist Lewontin frankly states, materialism

is an"a priori" commitment for evolutionists, who then

try to adapt science to this preconception !

[farzanatasneem]

Since materialism definitely necessitates denying the

existence of a Creator, they embrace the only alternative

they have to hand, which is the "theory of evolution."

And to adhere to this "A PRIORI" .they try to silent any voice that speaks in favour of

existence of God !

That is the reason why academic achievements of Dr Keith Moore and Dr Zaglool Najjar are being searched by evolutionists and every effort is being made to show that they are not worthy to be listened to!

[ConsideringPhlebas]

@LearnQuranicArabic

You know, just because we aren't fluent in Arabic doesn't mean we can't learn and understand a few words or a verse. Arabic isn't actually that difficult a language. We can learn what it says and understand it. To say that we don't understand a particular verse because we aren't fluent in Arabic is a complete ad hominem, and it doesn't refute our arguments. And if our arguments are bad because we don't speak it, then surely you could easily point out the flaws in them?

[robbegx]

@LearnQuranicArabic You got plenty of criticism not because we "just don't want to believe", but because you make a case as unconvincing as it gets. Here you are, claiming the Quran was right all along - after it had been pointed out it was wrong - while up until then EVERYBODY assumed the verse indicated delay. In fact, Adnan 'Thumma' Rashid was asking if Aristotle specifically mentions the sequence, as this was regarded something unique to the Quran.

[robbegx]

@LearnQuranicArabic The amount of apologetics Hamza (and now you) give us to swallow is piling up and I'm telling you man, you guys are making complete fools of yourselves (I'm also referring to the video discussion between you and TheRationalizer). Keep changing meanings (or picking interpretations that suit you, ignoring everything else), truth will prevail. Religion is bound to fail over time, and you guys are just helping with these pathetic attempts of defense.

[discussislam]

It's painful watching your videos. I'm sure you're a nice guy - but I feel so sorry for you.

[Y3DXGL90]

@discussislam Yes Truth is Painful to Liars.

[StopSpamming1]

This video shows again how pointless the usage of Arabic is to convey a clear message. It is painful to see the contortions LQA is going through, just to attempt to show how his noble, glorious, holy book does not make a mess of anything the primitive Arabic tribes did not know.

Why? Why not gracefully accept a book containing religious text as such? Why create some dogma around it?

[MegaFraudbuster]

muslims are masters at twisting meanings of words - they could fit an elephant into a matchbox !

[TheRationalizer]

LearnQuranicArabic I have a question for you that I would really like you to answer.

Were you or were you not already aware of the Quranic miracle claim that Muhammad could not possibly have known that bones come first and then the flesh/muscle afterwards (as per iERA's claim in the video)?

[TheRationalizer]

You even said it yourself

The Mudgha is khalaqna (created) into BONES, THEN clothed (kasawna) with flesh.

Let's see what Ibn Abbas says:

1: Then We transformed the drop into a clot for another forty days

2: Then We transformed the clot into a little lump for forty days

3: Then We transformed the little lump INTO BONES WITHOUT FLESH

4: The clothed the bones with flesh - joints, veins and other things

[TheRationalizer]

I note that yet again you add a word in brackets as if it were in Arabic.

"made [from] the bones flesh"

If only Allah had thought to write MIN then it would have been perfect wouldn't it? But no, the man from sibway institute had to write that word in in brackets to pretend it is in the Arabic.

In essence though I didn't understand your argument. You still said THEN the bones were clothed in flesh.

And why were you not complaining for years that the BONES THEN FLESH miracle claim was wrong?

[LearnQuranicArabic]

@TheRationalizer min would indicate that when the bones form, the mudgha will stay a mudgha in the process of bone development. Also, obviously bones can't be clothed if they are not there and that is why "then" is used.

[farzanatasneem]

@LearnQuranicArabic

The primordia of bones and muscles start simultaneously but the bones take the shape first followed by muscles which get arranged around them.

So it is simultaneous and successive development.

[TheRationalizer]

@farzanatasneem

Wrong. The muscle and bones form IN SITU (Quoted from Keith Moore) - in fact flesh and muscle finish developing before bones, which continue to develop into adulthood.

[farzanatasneem]

@TheRationalizer

Every part of body continues developing till adulthood except a few specific organs

[TheRationalizer]

@farzanatasneem

Did you completely miss the IN SITU quote from Keith Moore, or did you choose to ignore the most significant part of my post because it causes you difficulty?

[farzanatasneem]

@TheRationalizer

There is no difficulty on my part as i know embryology although I am not well versed with linguistic of Qur'an.

You are here to find faults with every explanation so you are thinking that everyone else is getting difficulty.

flesh and muscles do not finish developing before bones.

The muscles also grows with the child in the very same way as bones .

The bones take their shape before muscles from the very same primordium from where both develop.

[LuqmanNaq]

@LearnQuranicArabic The miraculous ambiguity of the Quran.

[IbnMalikSMY]

@TheRationalizer I find the explanation by Ustadh Nabeel very clear and it definitely proves the Quran is right about this issue no matter which objections you raise. You'll probably find some ambiguous statements made by Aristotle to claim that this knowledge was "already known" prior to the revelation. It's only convincing evidence for those who want to believe that the Quran is wrong.

[farzanatasneem]

@TheRationalizer

BONES then FLESH miracle is not wrong.

The primordia of both develop simultaneously and bones come into shape first.

Refer to embryology books which show the picture of bones taking the shape and muscles shown around as condensations

[TheRationalizer]

@farzanatasneem

Sorry, did you miss the part where the embryologist said that bones and muscle form simultaneously from mesenchyme, and did you miss the part where I quoted Keith Moore's book which says the same thing?

Perhaps you'd like me to quote from Keith Moore's book where he describes the formation of the fingers before there are any bones in them?

There is more to embryology than looking at the pretty pictures.

[farzanatasneem]

@TheRationalizer

So what is wrong with Qur'an??

It is describing the successive process of development.

[TheRationalizer]

@farzanatasneem

According to Ibn Abbas the Quran says that the embryo becomes bones without flesh and THEN develops flesh.

That is wrong.

[farzanatasneem]

@TheRationalizer

Ibn Abbas did not write the Qur'an.

[TheRationalizer]

@farzanatasneem

No, but he was a companion of Muhammad so was obviously VERY familiar with the way the language of the time was used, and he evidently took this verse to mean that bones exist before flesh.

[captaindisguise]

@TheRationalizer Don't you know that muslims today have a better understanding of the quran THAN the earliest scholars of the quran who learned directly from their alleged prophet :)

Lol where would muslims be without the luxury to pick and choose and reject academic honesty

[TheRationalizer]

@captaindisguise

Of course. The people in the past only THOUGHT they knew everything about classical Arabic, now we really do :)

[farzanatasneem]

@TheRationalizer

Do you know that he himself refused to give any explanation of the verses of Qur'an that describe one day being equivalent to 1000 and another one describing as 50000 years saying that those are allegorical verses so must be left alone !

[TheRationalizer]

@farzanatasneem

And really, what is the point of that? Nobody has ever managed to explain the purpose of an "allegorical verse" to me.

Allah wanted to tell us something.

Instead of just writing a clear book Allah decided to put in lots of verses that will NEVER mean anything to anyone except Allah.

So not only is it full of stuff only Allah understand (and thus was no point in putting it in there in the first place), but then didn't state which was which!

WHY?

[farzanatasneem]

@TheRationalizer

/watch?v=XwDvhregFGg&feature=c­hannel_video_title

Watch this video and visit the webpage referred in the description box.

Allah spoke many things clearly but because of our lack of knowledge we were not able to understand it.

The verse mentioned in this video description was from Sura Tur which clearly stated "Fire in the sea"

But no one could imagine a fire in the sea so they directed themselves to other conclusions by trying to see other meanings of the word "Masjoor"

[TheRationalizer]

@farzanatasneem

You do realise that the word "fire" doesn't actually appear in 52:6, and that it just says "By the sea, filled"?

The reference to fire comes from 81:6 which is talking about what WILL happen on the day of judgement, Allah will fill the sea with fire. It is NOT saying "there is currently fire under the sea"

Do you ever even spend a couple of minutes investigating these claims, or do you just automatically believe them because you like them?

[ConsideringPhlebas]

@TheRationalizer

Actually, the word in that verse (masjoor) can in fact mean 'on fire' as is stated in Ma'ariful Qur'an:

"...the passive participle masjoor is derived from sajr which is used in several different senses, one of which is to kindle with fire. Some of the commentators interpret the participle in this sense here, that is, by the sea which will be kindled with fire on the Day of Resurrection..." -- Vol. 8 p. 192

[farzanatasneem]

@TheRationalizer

That question is to be replied by LearnQuranicArabic as I am not an expert of Arabic language.

[LuqmanNaq]

@TheRationalizer I think this is going to be the part of Hamza Tzortzis and co's 'paper' on the Quran and embryology.

[StopSpamming1]

Naughty Allah and his ambiguous and vague wording!

"Or" can mean "and" and "and" can mean "or". "And" can mean "then". Use whatever you like whenever you need it.

And do ignore all the blatant errors around it, such as the words lump and flesh or muscle. Or the reproduction without the ovum and without fertilisation.

This is so pitiful.

[TheRationalizer]

@StopSpamming1

I wonder if heaven can also mean hell? That would be the ultimate twist, wouldn't it? :)

All those people die, OR find themselves in front of Allah MOREOVER find out they are going to hell instead of heaven...AND.

[jonjoe1000]

@StopSpamming1 Humpty Dumpty is making words mean what he wants them to mean ...again. Who will put Humpty back together again after his fall? This campaign to perpetuate the myth of the miraculous by making pure rhetoric proof of scientific knowledge in the Quran ....is becoming high comedy.

[farzanatasneem]

PZ myers also stated thatit was easy to guess that the bones formed first, although if we see the structure of limb bud, it is easier to GUESS that it must be muscular and then bones should come in picture.

But the author of Qur'an always guesses the right thing !

[captaindisguise]

@farzanatasneem My love, bones DONT form first.

Secondly, no. One would instinctively guess that the bones formed first because ppl make stuff inside out NOT outside in. Likewise, someone thinking of the body would see that bone is underneath the flesh (remember Inside Out), so it is a decent guess to say that the bones form first and then the flesh

But ofcourse, this is wrong, bones DONT form first

[farzanatasneem]

@captaindisguise

My point is that muscles DO NOT form first.

And if someone would have guessed , he should have guessed muscles to have formed first as the developing limb is so floppy when it starts as a limb bud.

[captaindisguise]

@farzanatasneem Honey, the verse does not say muscle it says "flesh" and flesh comes before bones

What makes you think muhammad in the 7th century even knew about "LIMB BUDS" ? My "inside out" explanation is one that any civilization can guess and which is probably what muhammad did.

It is funny you claim bones came before lahm, yet LQA in this video claim that mughda is simply smaller 'lahm' and thus existed before the bones...1 phrase, 2 ppl, 2 opposite interpretations

"Divine Comedy" :)

[farzanatasneem]

Those who want to understand verses of Qur'an understand it well.

But those who have habit of taking everything as comedy keep themselves indulged in comedy till the time for repentance is gone and they find themselves standing before their Creator to get evaluated for their deeds.

Qur'an 32:10-12

[jonjoe1000]

@captaindisguise "My book is true, it is, it is, it is, it is, and if you don't stop saying these nasty things ...I'll ...I'll scream and scream and scream until I'm sick...so there." Violet Elizabeth Bott. The Just William stories. I Imagine in the future perhaps ten thousand years into the future, if we're still around someone will be taking the Harry Potter books apart in order to prove its supernatural 'truths'

[captaindisguise]

@jonjoe1000 at least Harry Potter is not irrational or jealous enough to punish people who dont praise/worship/believe him :)

[ConsideringPhlebas]

I think 'lahm' refers more to the external membranes, while 'mudghah' refers to the embryo in its entirety. The verse is really just saying the obvious thing that the skin, muscles, etc., surround the bones, not that the 'lahm' is another part of the mudghah. E.g., Q. 2:259: وَٱنْظُرْ إِلَى ٱلعِظَامِ كَيْفَ نُنْشِزُهَا ثُمَّ نَكْسُوهَا لَحْماً ; 'And look to the bones how we set them up and then clothe them with flesh.'

[captaindisguise]

So you are saying mughda and lahm are pretty much the same, and part of the mugda turns into bone, and rest forms flesh.

Does this mean you dont accept that the quran says that AFTER the bone is formed, it is covered with flesh ? So what exactly is the covering of the bones with flesh referring to ?

PS;- do you believe this to be an example of scientific foreknowledge in the quran i.e do you think Muhammad would have been unable to make such statements ?