shreds...

[scifes]

Indeed. In fact, what I have head before from Islamic apologists has been than the Quran mentions the embryo starting as a blood clot. While I'm sure it would resemble one, this would be scientifically inaccurate. It is not a clot of blood.

no way
spidergoat, have YOU read the whole thread?

Drivel: if you had any solid evidence you'd present it, as opposed to these specious pieces of nonsense.

um yeah..

Presumably you entitled the thread "Shreds" because that's what's going to happen to everything you put up - it'll get shredded.

no because they're shreds to begin with, it's what you do with them is what matters, now why don't you people who are lazily and arrogantly throwing your shreds in the garbage do so quietly so the ones who are trying to put their shreds together and see if they're gonna make any sense can do so without your disturbance?

What you call "weak" is actually non-existent.

there's no need for you to reopen this thread then..or do you burn bridges after you cross them? if you think they're useless then no one else is allowed to try and make use of them?

It's been reduced to zero as evidence.

yeah, REDUCED..way to go..

It was deserving of being made fun of from the start.

says WHO?:bugeye:

The fact some posters were too polite to do so is probably more in the way of evidence of their good nature than any credibility to the posted "data".

maybe you're right..so was what they did wrong?

Then do so rather than putting up strawmen.

nope, in this thread i want people to draw their own conclusions, it's as simple as that.

Because if you'd bothered checking that "specialist" has already been refuted...
(As has Keith Moore - that's a hint not to allude to him any more).

by similar "specialists"?

Except that what you're presenting isn't unbiased - it presupposes that god exists.

nope, it asks the question.

 

[Dywyddyr]

now why don't you people who are lazily and arrogantly throwing your shreds in the garbage do so quietly so the ones who are trying to put their shreds together and see if they're gonna make any sense can do so without your disturbance?

Because they're worthless nonsense and should be pointed out as such.

says WHO?:bugeye:

I did - the clue was in my user name above the post.

maybe you're right..so was what they did wrong?

Wrong-ish. They lent an undeserved air of (temporary and) specious credibility to the nonsense.

nope, in this thread i want people to draw their own conclusions, it's as simple as that.

By presenting them with rubbish?
Okay here's an incontrovertible FACT that shows god doesn't exist - Noddy's best friend is Big Ears (look it up for yourself).

by similar "specialists"?

By people with at least as much experience in their respective fields as the two cranks have in theirs. (And those fields would be the ones commented upon and claimed as evidence).

nope, it asks the question.

Really? That's why Muhammed's book is called prophecies when the example you gave was history?
It pre-supposes some sort of divinity (or connection with...)
Or the claim "impossible to know without modern medical equipment", except that, of course, they aren't impossible to know, as shown.
Pre-supposition...

 

[iceaura]

Nothing done, said, or believed by humans in the range of human capacities - such as writing books, making mummies, building cities, seeing pictures in clouds, tellign stories about miracles, etc - is evidence of the existence of any God.

 

[Randwolf]

Indeed. In fact, what I have head before from Islamic apologists has been than the Quran mentions the embryo starting as a blood clot. While I'm sure it would resemble one, this would be scientifically inaccurate. It is not a clot of blood.

Oh, geez, Spider - get your facts straight. The Q'uran does not call it a "blood clot", it is much more descriptive than that... It refers to an embryo as a "chewed lump of flesh". "Blood clot", my word...


http://www.al-islam.org/about/contributions/humanreproduction.html

" We have fashioned the thing which clings into a chewed lump of flesh and We fashioned the chewed lump of flesh into bones then We clothed the bones with intact flesh " (23:14)

As already mentioned, the "something which clings" is the fertilised egg which clings to the wall of the womb.

If you take a piece of meat and chew it once and then take it out of your mouth and look at it, it will look exactly to what the embryo will look like after three weeks of development.

So now you can see clearly that they had an absolute and full understanding of what an embryo is. Again, "blood clot" indeed...

:blbl:


Oh, and scifes, please offer more tidbits to be shredded, at your earliest possible convenience! This will be great fun to watch...

/Randwolf grabs carton of popcorn and settles in

 

[GeoffP]

do you have comprehension problems then?

Of course not. Are you deliberately being a fool, or is there some purpose to these seemingly absurd questions and demands?

Indeed. In fact, what I have head before from Islamic apologists has been than the Quran mentions the embryo starting as a blood clot. While I'm sure it would resemble one, this would be scientifically inaccurate. It is not a clot of blood.

I've heard much the same thing.

Oh, geez, Spider - get your facts straight. The Q'uran does not call it a "blood clot", it is much more descriptive than that... It refers to an embryo as a "chewed lump of flesh". "Blood clot", my word...

Shall we replace one silliness with another?

 

[spidergoat]

Oh, geez, Spider - get your facts straight. The Q'uran does not call it a "blood clot", it is much more descriptive than that... It refers to an embryo as a "chewed lump of flesh". "Blood clot", my word...


http://www.al-islam.org/about/contributions/humanreproduction.html


So now you can see clearly that they had an absolute and full understanding of what an embryo is. Again, "blood clot" indeed...

:blbl:


Oh, and scifes, please offer more tidbits to be shredded, at your earliest possible convenience! This will be great fun to watch...

/Randwolf grabs carton of popcorn and settles in

Well, that's fine, but it isn't anything that couldn't have been known at the time. "It's a small lump of flesh" is a mere description of what one would see if they dissected a pregnant animal.

 

[iceaura]

the quran gave details about embryos and fetuses and stuff impossible to know without modern medical equipment.

No it didn't.

 

[Randwolf]

Well, that's fine, but it isn't anything that couldn't have been known at the time. "It's a small lump of flesh" is a mere description of what one would see if they dissected a pregnant animal.

I agree - my post was intended as satire - I get the feeling that you weren't sure if it was meant that way or not. Does that make the satire poorly executed or well done?

In any event, I am quite interested in these "shreds" that cause someone to come to the conclusion that there "must be" (as opposed to "could be") a God, otherwise the "ancients" couldn't have known certain things, built certain things, etc.

 

[spidergoat]

That makes me humor challenged. Take pity.

 

[scifes]

so if the majority of the critical examination could be done between you and yourself, i'd appreciate it.

reading comprehensions problems..

note; this is not because i'm afraid you'll "spoil" my evidence for me, i'd love you to do so, it's just i'm not ready to argue you all on them, at least not here..

it seems somethings can be avoided, some can't eh?

i've silently given the shred, so please examine it in silence too, and don't get too excited, there are more to come..

deaf..deaf..deaf people everywhere..

well, you might be right, but i'll let people decide that on their own, they could also check up RamsesII and Dr. Maurice Bucaille for more info..

yet:

Anyway, I expect it was fairly well known that the Pharoahs (and which one did Mohammed mean?) were so preserved.

i mean:

have you not read the whole thread, Geoffp?

I have.

do you have comprehension problems then?

Of course not. Are you deliberately being a fool, or is there some purpose to these seemingly absurd questions and demands?

?????????????
yes, to you all..it seems that i'm the one being a fool, when none of you can follow simple instructions..

but as you can see, that's not my goal here, i'm trying my best not to sound like the one giving the "for" and the rest of you reply with the "against", not only because i'm afraid of misrepresenting the side i'm taking, but because i'm not ready to get into the quarrel to begin with, not now at least..

so i repeat my humble request, of people measuring the for and against of each shred by themselves, so as not to affect or get affected by others, all what it takes is a couple of claps by some of you to start the blinding biased avalanche..

so how many times should i repeat it?

One cannot silently give that which is not silent.

why not?
can't you reject it in silence?

Nothing done, said, or believed by humans in the range of human capacities - such as writing books, making mummies, building cities, seeing pictures in clouds, tellign stories about miracles, etc - is evidence of the existence of any God.

so you're helpless?

 

[spidergoat]

spidergoat, have YOU read the whole thread?

Yes it's only 2 pages long.

 

[iceaura]

Nothing done, said, or believed by humans in the range of human capacities - such as writing books, making mummies, building cities, seeing pictures in clouds, tellign stories about miracles, etc - is evidence of the existence of any God.
”
so you're helpless?

? I had no trouble examining carefully every shred of evidence for the "existence" of a god ( in the clear sense of this thread), and pronouncing it worthless.

 

[scifes]

No it didn't.

have you read it?

 

[(Q)]

#1:
mohammad's book of prophecy, the quran, mentioned that the pharaoh's body will be preserved so he will become a lesson to those after him.
and well, his body was found preserved alright.

Ah so, Muhammad stated the obvious and it came to be.

Ingenious! What a prophet! What a guy!

 

[scifes]

Yes it's only 2 pages long.

then which of the sentences i quoted myself saying in post #30 did you not understand?

 

[(Q)]

shred#2:
the quran gave details about embryos and fetuses and stuff impossible to know without modern medical equipment.

Complete bs. The "three veils of darkness" is merely Muhammad stealing the ideas of another (Aristotle)

and for future reference; Mohammad is an illiterate desert nomad who lived 1400 years ago.

He was a despot and a murderer, so most likely he was also a liar.

 

[(Q)]

Keith Moore used certain terms to form his conclusions. The title of the paper "A Scientist's Interpretation of References to Embryology in the Qur'an" is indicative of his use of those terms:

"seems to imply"
"seems to indicate"

http://www.islam101.com/science/embryo.html



"the translations of the verses of the Qur'ân in the above paper were provided by Sheik Abdul Majid Zendani"

"Moore has written on "references to embryology in the Qur'an", for instance, in an article for The Journal of the Islamic Medical Association, Vol. 18, Jan-June 1986, pp. 15-16. *note, this has not been proven and could just be a random quote, there is no evidence to suggest that Keith Moore ever did refer to the Qur'an or convert to Islam."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore

 

[GeoffP]

why not?
can't you reject it in silence?

Can't you support it in silence?

I don't think you understand how an internet forum works. You want to create some kind of permanent reference thread, but this place is about debate. How can I make this clearer to you?

 

[Enmos]

Well, that's fine, but it isn't anything that couldn't have been known at the time. "It's a small lump of flesh" is a mere description of what one would see if they dissected a pregnant animal.

Or a human!

 

[iceaura]

have you read it?

Yes.