The Quran & Science

[risky]

But quoting verses about talking ants or how many legs all the critters have (while omitting most of the critters on earth which have more than four legs) just makes you look gullible, credulous, and uneducated.

You see, you fail to comprehend the difference of what i was putting forth as science that could not have been known and what i was refuting as to what some claimed to be contradictory to science.

But there is proof that ants don't talk (I'm not talking communication by scent, but talking as told in the Quran), which just makes the Quran less likely to have any grain of truth in it.

-Look to what i posted above for help on your misconception.

There is proof that semen comes from male genitals, not somewhere in the back by the kidneys, regardless of the spin you put on that dubious description.

It was a dubious refutation that i provided and i apologize; So let me go about clarifying/shedding some more light.

"He is created from a drop emitted-Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:" 86: 6-7.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/086.qmt.html

"It says simply that man is created from the liquid that is ejaculated.  During coitus that liquid springs from the abdomen (“between the ribcage and the spine”).  That is a scientific fact!

1400 years ago, even doctors thought semen springs from the testicles during coitus.  They were wrong of course!  Recent discoveries have proven them wrong!

Semen is stored in vesicles that lie in the abdomen.  From there it is ejaculated during coitus.  Lay people still think that the ejaculate comes from the testicles.

The Quran does not say where semen is produced.  Just where it comes from during coitus!

In fact, if the Quran had said that the semen is produced in the abdomen, (“between the ribcage and the spine”), and not the testicles, it would still be accurate.  At least 95 to 98% accurate!  Only 2-5% of the semen is contributed by the testicles.  The rest is produced in the glands located in the pelvic cavity.

But the Quran does not say where the semen is produced, because the Quran is not 98% accurate.  It is 100% ACCURATE!"
http://www.answering-christianity.com/m ... buttal.htm

This site goes in-depth on explanation of the production.. and basically reaffirms what is stated: http://www.fertility.com/international/ ... uction.jsp

@myleviathan The Author? = God? Muhammed only received the revelations. So he did not know anything else except that which was revealed to him. (In relation to the Quran). How else could anything that is stated in the Qur'an be there? (As to what I've posted about science etc.) Now you claim that since he (Muhammed) had 'all the knowledge'... why weren't they flying in space etc? Ask yourself how did he 'figure'/'find' these things out? (If it was him as you say)

If you want your argument to gain any leverage at all please prove to me, that what I've stated could have been discovered 1,400 years ago with the technology they had, show me some evidence that it was plausible/possible for those things to be discovered way back when with their technology & hook me up with what technology; then I will wonder why they were not flying in space by the crusades.

Don't get too excited. Risky is very good at using creative rhetoric to give the appearance of beating your arguments. It's rather disappointing.

I think I've answered all the questions you've posed head on, I do not think I have ducked under the table when providing refutations; [If you'd point me to where I have according to your reasoning & explain how it is; I'll try and clarify/explain more so if it is possible.]

[McQ]

Risky?  Oh, Risky!  Here Risky Risky Risky!  Where'd you go?

Was it something I said?  

Let's keep this adult please. Thanks.

[D_Advocate]

Thank you risky for having the courage to come and post here. I am an ex-Muslim myself and I have read the Koran several times. I still listen to the beautiful recitation by Mustafa Ismail. Although I know it is all man-made and full of lies, I found the recitation quite appealing. It is like listening to an opera. It sounds great. The Koran is not a bad piece of work, really, if you don't take it seriously.

As for my view of the contents of the Koran, I think it could fall into the following five categories:
1. Borrowed stories from Jewish mythology. These are highly entertaining and I think could be considered at par with any harry Potter volume. This includes the man who lived to be 900 or so years, talking birds and talking ants.
2. Arguments for the validity of the text, sometimes desperate and mostly combined with threats. (Wouldn't have been much easier if God talks to me directly and spare us all that).
3. Shallow observations about the natural world. This includes what you call scientific facts in the Koran. While many of the observations seem correct, they all remain quite shallow with no added value whatsoever.
4. Lies. With some simple analysis you can tell the motive behind most of the lies.
5. A limited code of ethics, some of which is considered repulsive by today’s moral standards.

[myleviathan]

Thank you risky for having the courage to come and post here. I am an ex-Muslim myself and I have read the Koran several times. I still listen to the beautiful recitation by Mustafa Ismail. Although I know it is all man-made and full of lies, I found the recitation quite appealing. It is like listening to an opera. It sounds great. The Koran is not a bad piece of work, really, if you don't take it seriously.

As for my view of the contents of the Koran, I think it could fall into the following five categories:
1. Borrowed stories from Jewish mythology. These are highly entertaining and I think could be considered at par with any harry Potter volume. This includes the man who lived to be 900 or so years, talking birds and talking ants.
2. Arguments for the validity of the text, sometimes desperate and mostly combined with threats. (Wouldn't have been much easier if God talks to me directly and spare us all that).
3. Shallow observations about the natural world. This includes what you call scientific facts in the Koran. While many of the observations seem correct, they all remain quite shallow with no added value whatsoever.
4. Lies. With some simple analysis you can tell the motive behind most of the lies.
5. A limited code of ethics, some of which is considered repulsive by today’s moral standards.

D_Advocate - good post. It's nice to have your perspective.

My only disagreement is that I like Harry Potter better than Jewish mythology...  

[D_Advocate]

Thank you myleviathan.

Harry Potter is cool  

[myleviathan]

Thank you myleviathan.

Harry Potter is cool    That mythology is every bit as valid as the others.

[curiosityandthecat]

Thank you myleviathan.

Harry Potter is cool    That mythology is every bit as valid as the others.

Give it two thousand years.

[risky]

1. Borrowed stories from Jewish mythology. These are highly entertaining and I think could be considered at par with any harry Potter volume. This includes the man who lived to be 900 or so years, talking birds and talking ants.

-Borrowed stories from Jewish mythology? Really? Please enlighten me. Show me the comparisons I'm up for a read.

-The man who lived to be 900 years old? Really thats in the Quran? Could you provide a reference from the Quran supporting that?  Good luck, you'll need it.

- I've already refuted 'talking ants' using the Quran. Perhaps you didn't read it, refer to page 5. As for talking birds, please direct me to the verse.

2. Arguments for the validity of the text, sometimes desperate and mostly combined with threats.

Really, "mostly combined with threats"? Interesting, Truly.

3. Shallow observations about the natural world. This includes what you call scientific facts in the Koran. While many of the observations seem correct, they all remain quite shallow with no added value whatsoever.

Thanks for your opinion.

4. Lies. With some simple analysis you can tell the motive behind most of the lies.

Again like the Jewish mythology, Please enlighten me.

5. A limited code of ethics, some of which is considered repulsive by today’s moral standards.

"limited"? How so?

[risky]

Since it looks like I won't be getting any responses. I'll just move on. (College sucks btw : )

SEX DETERMINATION

The sex of a fetus is determined by the nature of the sperm and not the ovum. The sex of the child, whether female or male, depends on whether the 23rd
pair of chromosomes is XX or XY respectively. Primarily sex determination occurs at fertilization and depends upon the type of sex chromosome in the sperm that fertilizes an ovum. If it is an ‘X’ bearing sperm that fertilizes the ovum, the fetus is a female and if it is a ‘Y’ bearing sperm then the fetus is a male. “That He did create In pairs â€" male and female, From a seed when lodged (In its place).” [Al-Qur’aan 53:45-46]

The Arabic word nutfah means a minute quantity of liquid and tumnâ means ejaculated or planted. Therefore nutfah specifically refers to sperm because it is ejaculated. The Qur’aan says: “Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (In lowly form)? “Then did he become A clinging clot; Then did (Allah) make And fashion (him) In due proportion. “And of him He made Two sexes, male And female.” [Al-Qur’aan 75:37-39]  

Here again it is mentioned that a small quantity (drop) of sperm (indicated by the word nutfatan min maniyyin) which comes from the man is responsible for the sex of the fetus.

Source: http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/quran/qms.pdf
*~Notice I added the Underlining and Bolding that was not originally in the text.

[Squid]

Or, it could be just simple observation that when a man ejaculates into the woman, she produces a child which is either a boy or a girl which both come from the same place.  I am skeptical of this being extrapolated to knowledge of genetics in the 6th century.

[Asmodean]

Or, it could be just simple observation that when a man ejaculates into the woman, she produces a child which is either a boy or a girl which both come from the same place.

Fortunately, she produces the brat about 9 months AFTER you do the PG16 stuff. Givesya time to pack the bags and head for Mexico  

[risky]

Or, it could be just simple observation that when a man ejaculates into the woman, she produces a child which is either a boy or a girl which both come from the same place.  I am skeptical of this being extrapolated to knowledge of genetics in the 6th century.

Interesting that, that is contrary to the beliefs that were most probably held back then.

"Until the biological facts were discovered, women were always considered responsible for the gender of their children. Attitudes are changing as people become better informed. However women are still blamed..." (Pg 170)

Source: "Culture, Religion and Childbearing in a Multiracial Society" By Judith Schott, Alix Henley

You can find the book online at: http://books.google.com/books?id=9s7Eho ... #PPA170,M1

And are still held in some third world countries.

[Asmodean]

"Until the biological facts were discovered, women were always considered responsible for the gender of their children. Attitudes are changing as people become better informed. However women are still blamed..." (Pg 170)

Source: "Culture, Religion and Childbearing in a Multiracial Society" By Judith Schott, Alix Henley

Can't blame either parent for the sex of their offspring. But you sure CAN blame them both for an un-wanted pregnancy. There are condoms in so to say every store after all. Much less invasive than abortion AND they protect from STDs too.  

[Squid]

Or, it could be just simple observation that when a man ejaculates into the woman, she produces a child which is either a boy or a girl which both come from the same place.  I am skeptical of this being extrapolated to knowledge of genetics in the 6th century.

Interesting that, that is contrary to the beliefs that were most probably held back then.

"Until the biological facts were discovered, women were always considered responsible for the gender of their children. Attitudes are changing as people become better informed. However women are still blamed..." (Pg 170)

Source: "Culture, Religion and Childbearing in a Multiracial Society" By Judith Schott, Alix Henley

You can find the book online at: http://books.google.com/books?id=9s7Eho ... #PPA170,M1

And are still held in some third world countries.

Not quite the point I was making.

[risky]

Not quite the point I was making.

I completely understand the point you were making, hence my response ; )