The supernatural

[Cosmic Yak]

Also love the way we're back to 'this can all be proved in the laboratory', when heydarian has repeatedly said it can't.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

To be fair, it's more like "do you expect me to prove this <fetal development stuff> in the lab?" but of course it's not the biology bit that's in question. It's the magical "explanation" bit.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Here's the nature of the problem, heydarian saeed:

I have invented a teleporter. It looks like a broom cupboard, but when you step inside it transports you between two parallel universes. In one universe, God is real, demons and jinns are real, angels and souls are real. In the other universe none of those things are real, they are all simply imaginary, but many people imagine them to be real. The problem is I have no way to tell which universe I have been transported to. Can you use your laboratory to develop a test which will allow me to tell which universe I am in? Thanks.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

I did not understand what you mean, dear friend. Tell more clearly.

Wibble = nonsense.

Haeckel is probably best known for his long-disproved/de-bunked notion of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" to describe foetal development.

So I was describing one or 2 of your posts on foetal development as nonsense, which expressing a small measure of gratitude that you did not mention Haeckel's ideas, which some still do unfortunately.

 

[Pixel42]

So the latest cut & pasted inaccurate 'scientific' screed (women have sperm, apparently) is an attempt to associate quickening with the arrival of a soul?

It just gets more and more desperate and pathetic.

 

[jond]

So the latest cut & pasted inaccurate 'scientific' screed (women have sperm, apparently) is an attempt to associate quickening with the arrival of a soul?

It just gets more and more desperate and pathetic.

Is miracle!

 

[JoeMorgue]

It just gets more and more desperate and pathetic.

Yeah if it keeps getting more and more desperate and pathetic at this rate within only a few short hours it will reach the level of... *check notes* mainstream religious beliefs held by the majority of people.

This is crazy in tone and formatting and feel but "At some arbitrary point in our neonatal development God puts a magic soul in us" is perfectly mainstream.

As with all discussions of this type, I'm far less concerned with the number of people who obviously know this is crazy in this discussion and yet again wondering where all the people who believe the absolute exact same thing with no meaningful distinction or difference and who's sole differing factor is that they word it more calmly and in more socially acceptable language are at to defend them.

I can take every piece of crazy said in this thread and word, without functionally changing anything being said, in a way that most people (in America) would agree with.

Crazy/Sane should not just be a matter of how well you format your paragraph breaks.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

This is crazy in tone and formatting and feel but "At some arbitrary point in our neonatal development God puts a magic soul in us" is perfectly mainstream.

Absolutely true, that's most mainstream religion, but it's odd to have it dropped into a supposed proof of the existence of the supernatural. "Just accept this magical axiom and soon I'll prove magic is real" is surely among the most circular of arguments.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Again Heydarian, stop ignoring me.

Also no, the Soul isn't real. There is no such thing as a soul and zero evidence for one. You are simply assuming that there is one and declaring yourself to be right. You can't do that you know, it's total nonsense.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Absolutely true, that's most mainstream religion, but it's odd to have it dropped into a supposed proof of the existence of the supernatural. "Just accept this magical axiom and soon I'll prove magic is real" is surely among the most circular of arguments.

Yes. And in a post-fact world circular arguments are golden.

 

[Robin]

Here are some brief extracts from Galens, On the natural faculties, book3. These texts being rich in detailed factual observations.

"For, as we know it takes nine months in most women for the foetus to attain maturity in the womb, this organ having its neck quite closed, and entirely surrounding the embryo together with the chorion."

The following quote shows Galen fully understood the role of sex in the reproductive process.

"The women believe they have received the semen which comes from the male, and they are retaining it."

Finally Galen shows that Hippocrates(c 460-c370 BC) before him was aware of details of pregnancy 500 years earlier.

"Hippocrates, who was the first of all physicians and philosophers to declare that the os uteri closes during pregnancy and inflammation."

And Aristotle dissected bird eggs at various states of development and documented the complete process. Aristotle also inferred that sperm was a foam of bubbles too small to be seen individually by the human eye and that these bubbles carried information from the father about form.

The writings of Aristotle and Galen were preserved largely in Arabic.

 

[Robin]

And Aristotle dissected bird eggs at various states of development and documented the complete process. Aristotle also inferred that sperm was a foam of bubbles too small to be seen individually by the human eye and that these bubbles carried information from the father about form.

The writings of Aristotle and Galen were preserved largely in Arabic.

Al-Mu-minun is regarded as a Meccan Surah, ie before 622 CE and unlikely that Aristotle would have been common knowledge back then. (Even if it is not authentically from that period the earliest manuscripts containng this surah appear to date around mid 7th century CE).

More likely that some simplified version of Galen and Hippocrates would have been the popular science of the day.

Muhamad may have been illiterate, but there is no reason to suppose he was ignorant.

 

[Scorpion]

... Says: I swear by the sky and (star) striking. And how do you know what a striking star is? The same penetrating star.! (Surah Al-Tariq, verses 3-1) Here, directly and without intermediaries and with an oath, he states an important scientific matter. Which was discovered in the twentieth century! What is a penetrating star? We know today that these are the same as pulsars, neutron stars, and space black holes. They make a knocking sound like a huge hammer.

I have decided to go back through your ten points of so called science in the Quran.

My translations of verse 86.3 say 'the star of piercing brightness'
Nothing about penetrating or knocking

This verse is considered by scholars to be referring either to Saturn or Venus which shows Muhammad's ignorance because he thought these planets were bright stars.

 

[heydarian saeed]

... Hello. Continue the article:
The soul is not subject to the laws of matter. While it is mixed with the body of the fetus, it is also not of the female sex. Therefore, it is not visible. But from its effects, which is the movement and perception of the fetus, we realize the existence of the soul in the fetus. In the same way, at the time of human death, when all vital signs have ceased, we realize that the soul has left the body. And death has occurred.
In fact, the human body has lost the ability to hold the soul and can not hold it. Therefore, the soul leaves the body. The question may be asked are those who can remove the soul from their body while they are alive. What kind of process is this? I have no answer in this regard. And human science has not yet understood this.
But the same thing happens during human sleep. I said in the text of the article that human sleep is not material. And it is supernatural. And my reason was that in a dream, we fly or we see the future and the past. And this action is not made of nerve neurons. And science still has no justification for it. According to the above, the human soul and sleep are not material. And is superior to matter. Or they are sexier than sex. What these two categories, like science and God, are unknown to man. And no one knows. But its existence has been known and proved according to the logical and philosophical arguments that have been said, as well as from their works, signs and evidences.
Can man create a living being ?!
We must first examine the life of a living being. Two important features of life must be considered in all theories of abiogenesis. These features are replication and metabolism. The question of which of the two arose in the first place gave rise to two different theories in this field. First, the hypothesis proposing the priority of metabolism (metabolism) was proposed. Some time later, the initial creation hypothesis of replicators was also considered.
In the modern understanding of the first forms of living organisms, it is possible that these organisms were unicellular prokaryotes (without a cell nucleus). These single cells themselves can be made up of protobions, organic molecules covered by a membrane-like coating. The oldest known microbial fossil found is about three and a half billion years old, almost one billion years after the formation of the Earth.
About 2.4 billion years ago the ratio of stable carbon isotopes,
Iron and sulfur indicate the effect of living organisms on minerals and sediments. Other molecular markers indicate the presence of photosynthesis at that time, which indicates the wide distribution of life at that time on Earth.
The sequence of chemical events that led to the formation of the first nucleic acid is not yet fully understood. Several hypotheses have been proposed regarding early life, the most important of which are the theory of the iron-sulfur universe (metabolism without inheritance) and the theory of the RNA universe (DNA generator)...

 

[heydarian saeed]

... Mutations from these non-living molecules to living organisms that They have DNA molecules and they reproduce, it is extremely complex and we still do not know much about it.
In any case, one of the main and essential features
Organisms are the ability to replicate or reproduce. Whether this replication is done like bacteria with cell division or like large mammals with sexual reproduction and childbearing. No one knows this process
How it started and what steps it went through. No one has yet been able to create a living thing in the laboratory from non-living elements.
In the 1960s, some scientists thought that perhaps the first molecule to replicate, a molecule that could make its own, was RNA, a close relative of DNA. Protein plays an essential role in the formation of living organisms. Proteins can come in many forms and can do almost anything. For example, act as an enzyme. Enzymes are substances that act as catalysts for a wide range of chemical reactions.
However, the information needed to make proteins into molecules
There is DNA. Without DNA, no new proteins can be made, and without protein, no new DNA can be made. So which came first, protein or DNA? In the 1960s, the discovery that RNA molecules could act somewhat like proteins brought an interesting answer to the minds of scientists. If RNA could catalyze reactions and store information at the same time, some RNA molecules should be able to make more RNA molecules.
Thus, replicator RNAs did not require proteins. They could do everything themselves. RNA has been shown to be a versatile molecule. This was a major breakthrough for the idea that life was originally made up of RNA molecules. This idea is called the "RNA World Hypothesis." However, this idea also has a big problem. We do not know how RNA molecules came into being. Were there ever simpler molecules with the ability to replicate? Some scientists think RNA was not the first replicator.
Maybe before the world of RNA, there was a world called TNA, PNA or ANA. These are all RNA-like molecules whose components appear to be more likely to form spontaneously. The problem is that if life came into being in one of these forms, there is no evidence for it. Despite all this, many questions remain. Including where exactly did the first replicator molecules appear? What was early life like? What was the transfer to DNA and proteins like, and how did the genetic code come about? ...

 

[heydarian saeed]

.

Quran surah 22.5 O Mankind! if ye have a doubt about the resurrection (consider) that we created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech like clot, then out of a morsel of flesh partly formed and partly unformed, in order that we may manifest (our power) to you. And we cause whom we will to rest in the wombs for an appropriate term. Then do we bring you out as babes, then (foster you) That ye may reach your age of full strength; Translated By Yusuf Ali.

Anyone who believes this brief verse in the quran referring to the embryo is a revelation from God should study the writings of Galen. He was born in AD129 and his writings are a truly staggering insight into the workings of the human body for such a time. He discusses the function of the womb and the uterus, and the development of the embryo and foetus. Most of his knowledge came from observation and the dissection of animals, and most of his false assumptions doubtlessly come from the fact he did not dissect human bodies.
His works were originally written in Greek, but were translated into Latin and Arabic. Such knowledge was in the world 500 years before Muhammad's time, and Hippocrates made astounding medical observations one thousand years before Muhammad. Since surah 22 was reputedly revealed in Madinah, or during the later Makkan period Muhammad had already spent ten years or more aquiring the spoils of War, and it is known that books were highly prized items, so knowledge of Galen's writings could have been acquired from looted manuscripts. Here are some brief extracts from Galens, On the natural faculties, book3. These texts being rich in detailed factual observations.

"For, as we know it takes nine months in most women for the foetus to attain maturity in the womb, this organ having its neck quite closed, and entirely surrounding the embryo together with the chorion."

The following quote shows Galen fully understood the role of sex in the reproductive process.

"The women believe they have received the semen which comes from the male, and they are retaining it."

Finally Galen shows that Hippocrates(c 460-c370 BC) before him was aware of details of pregnancy 500 years earlier.

"Hippocrates, who was the first of all physicians and philosophers to declare that the os uteri closes during pregnancy and inflammation."

Predating this detailed Greek scientific knowledge formed from observation and dissection of near human animals, the bible itself shows knowledge of the womb and conception.

The word womb appears 71 times in the King James Bible. Here are some pertinent extracts.

OT Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

OT Hosea 9:14 Give them, O Lord; what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.

NT Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

NT Luke 1:41 And it came to pass, that when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.

Here is one of many verses that states man was formed from dust.
OT Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the Ground,
The bible also talks of the seed of copulation at Leviticus 15:16 and 15:17 and 15:18. So there is no revelation in using the word sperm, and in fact other English translations, such as Pickthall use the word seed, not sperm, so the exact translation of the Arabic word makes no difference to the implication that such knowledge was in the world.
In short there is no new information in the quran concerning the birth process, unless one claims that the mention of a leech like clot of blood is a revelation that describes a new embryo. But for a man who had eleven wives, and was fully aware of the links between menstrual blood, and the lack of it during pregnancy, it only took one miscarriage for him to see a tiny foetus for himself. Therefore verse 22.5 of the quran did not require any revelation from God, as Muhammad could have been well aware of most of what is involved in the natural process of gestation.

Hi. I read your post 640 in full. As you say: Muhammad stole from the book of Galen. It is a completely baseless claim that you make only speculation. I have already mentioned that do not follow suspicion, and this is an ugly and disgusting practice. And it does not help you in making the right judgment. Talk to a historical and scientific document.
I have not seen anywhere in your post or in the Qur'an that it says that sperm comes out of the water of the spine! This is nonsense that you are still speculating. Please be accountable. And do not say the undocumented word correctly.
There are 76 verses in the Qur'an that speak of the fetus and the birth of man. And in the Qur'an, it says two types of creation for human beings. One; Creation far and far from the soil. The meaning and interpretation of this is that from the same material and type of soil, we have created man.
This is an allegory which means that man created him from the same matter and soil that man knows and sees. And the second, from the sperm created by the fertilization of the egg and sperm. You never see the name of an egg or a sperm or a man in the Qur'an. Because it generally says intercourse. And then describes in detail the stages of fetal creation. This is the correct text of the Qur'an that has said it. And I have told you a few verses, including verses 12 to 14 of Surah Al-Mu'minun.
Please do not speak with undocumented content in order to blackmail the community environment and the minds of friends. I advise not to benefit anyone.
I do not deny what is recorded in Galen's books on the fetus. And I admire him in this regard. But the contents of the Qur'an have nothing to do with Galen's books. Do not insist on this opinion. This is a false claim. Please speak with a scientific and historical degree.

 

[heydarian saeed]

Why should we wait for more when what you have produced is so full of mistakes. It is all nonsense. No respected journal would go near your article. What it's the point of this thread. You don't take on board criticism, no one is convinced. A waste of time for all.

Hi. Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, this is not the case. You have closed your eyes to the truth and reality. I will tell you all these scientific contents in accordance with the Qur'an and all of them with the document. You do not see any of them. Isn't that surprising dear friend?
Of course, it is not surprising because we are in the group of professional skeptics. It is true?

 

[Pixel42]

It is a completely baseless claim that you make only speculation.

This describes everything you have posted, heydarian.

If you can't see that for yourself then we can't help you. You have closed your eyes to the truth and reality.

 

[heydarian saeed]

Sounds familiar.

Hi dear friend. This is not the case. Muhammad had no classical valley. So he did not write anything. Rather, he told people the revelation of God, which was the Qur'an. It was just a messenger. People who have been with him and his friends and are literate have written. And it is mostly written by Ali. After completing the revelation, he has collected all the writings.
And then in the form of a Qur'an by Muhammad herself (read to her and confirmed or corrected her)
Finally, the book of Quran was presented to the people. In this regard, it is important to know that God Himself has said that I have full control over the preservation of the contents of the Qur'an and that this book will never be destroyed. Because we are its guardians. (15.9) Translation:
Undoubtedly, we have revealed this Qur'an gradually and we will certainly be its guardians.

 

[Lothian]

Hi. Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, this is not the case. You have closed your eyes to the truth and reality. I will tell you all these scientific contents in accordance with the Qur'an and all of them with the document. You do not see any of them. Isn't that surprising dear friend?
Of course, it is not surprising because we are in the group of professional skeptics. It is true?

No amateur skeptics, but professionals in many areas and keen enthusiasts in others. Certainly there is enough expertise here to point out the errors in your article and why it will not be taken seriously by scientists or religious scholars.

Which again begs the question. Why are you posting here?
Is it to get feedback or to try to convince? You are ignoring the former and totally failing at the later.