Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: Every living thing made from water. Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 36 Next >>
Author Message
Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Online
Posts: 1836
Quote Ron Webb Replybullet Posted: 21 December 2010 at 5:12pm

Originally posted by islamispeace

I did not say creation from dust was metaphorical.

Oh please, literally from dust?  And what about clay?  Are we made, literally, from aluminum silicate?


Originally posted by Ron

Any description of reproduction that claims we are formed from sperm, without even mentioning the ovum, is just plain wrong.

Sure it is.  All societies knew back then that both a male and female were required to procreate.  Therefore, it is inconceivable that they did not believe that the woman also contributed to the process of procreation.  But since the ovum is not easily identified, it is understandable that ancient cultures did not mention it.

So we can agree that ancient cultures got it wrong.  My question is, why did Allah get it wrong?  Even if He didn't want to use the obvious common word, why couldn't He have said something like "it is He who creates man from a tiny speck in a woman's womb" or something to that effect?  Why would He repeat the same mistake that the people were making?

And actually, the theory of the humours claimed that water was associated with "phlegm" which was different from blood, a different humour.  According to the website "Greek Medicine", the phlegmatic humour included phlegm along with "...all the other clear fluids of the body:  mucus, saliva, plasma, lymph, and serous and interstitial fluids." This did not include semen.  Unless you can provide a source which disagrees, you claim that semen was considered to be water by the ancients is simply not true.

You were one click away from answering your own question.  If you go to the link on the right side of the page you cited, called "The Four Elements", you would read that water is the main component of "All the vital fluids of the body, especially the clear fluids: phlegm, mucus, plasma, lymph and serous and interstitial fluids.  The kidneys, bladder and urinary tract, which pass superfluous Water from the body.  The mucosa of the digestive, respiratory and genitourinary tracts.  The lymphatic system.  The brain and spinal cord."  Yes, phlegm is the humor associated with the regulation of water in the body, but all fluids (and all humors, for that matter) are forms of the element water.

Again, there was no reason for Allah to mention the ovum since the ovum was not even discovered until 1200 years later!

But you just agreed with my statement that "Any description of reproduction that claims we are formed from sperm, without even mentioning the ovum, is just plain wrong."

You seem to think that it was a matter of the utmost importance when it really wasn't.  The Quran is not a science book.

Exactly.  Hence my objection to rememberallah's claim that the Quran reported "scientific facts".  I have no problem with the Quran as metaphor, as poetry, or as vague generalizations of natural phenomena.  But scientific facts?  Hardly.

Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.
IP IP Logged
Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Online
Posts: 1836
Quote Ron Webb Replybullet Posted: 21 December 2010 at 6:00pm
Originally posted by rememberallah

the point is not what all things are mentioned, the point is the wrong things are not mentioned,
 
It seems to me that leaving out 99%+ of the relevant information is misleading at best, and for practical purposes most people would consider it wrong.  For example, if I tell you that my house is made of paint, that would surely be wrong, even though paint is indeed a tiny component.
 
now you are trying to force contradictions, you know what you are doing..........
 
I'm not forcing anything.  I'm just pointing out what Allah has (allegedly) written, and where it diverges from the scientific facts.
 
 
 
Originally posted by rememberallah

creation from water is not literal but same as that of dust....
 
Good, but if the statement is not literally true than it can hardly be considered a scientific fact, can it?
 
...ron webb you are just trying to push in arguments. good the word egg was never used as then people like you n schmikbob would had not seen that what God meant, but argued that what it meant at that time.
 
Skeptics like schmikibob and me will probably argue anyway, but at least if Allah had described the process accurately, then science would have eventually proven him right.
 
donno why my replies are not being published. 
 
New members' posts are often delayed to discourage trolls.  It's frustrating, I know, but the moderators have decided it is necessary.


Edited by Ron Webb - 21 December 2010 at 6:03pm
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.
IP IP Logged
rememberallah
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 08 November 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 158
Quote rememberallah Replybullet Posted: 21 December 2010 at 11:16pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

 
It seems to me that leaving out 99%+ of the relevant information is misleading at best, and for practical purposes most people would consider it wrong.  For example, if I tell you that my house is made of paint, that would surely be wrong, even though paint is indeed a tiny component.
[QUOTE]
 
my brother it wouldnt exactly be wrong, moreover if you svy my home is made of bricks, tell me who would say you are wrong as house is also made of cement, concrete etc. he wouldnt be like vicky the robot of "small wonder" and understand what oyou mean. coming back to paint, but paint can be substituted with wall paper, tiles etc. but sperm can not be substituted with anythng, so issue is not quantity that how much ovum and how much sperm, but importance.  as for the major role a verse compares women to land and man to tilling the land. how beautiful, a farmer only puts seed and water, while the land around the seed {a thousand times bigger} gives back such big big plants, trees etc. the seed is so small and yet irreplaceable. i ope you get the point.
 
 [QUOTE=Ron Webb]
I'm not forcing anything.  I'm just pointing out what Allah has (allegedly) written, and where it diverges from the scientific facts.
 [QUOTE]
 
thats what we are trying to show you that it has not diverged from scientific facts, you say other civilisations believed that things were created from water, we say they also believed in wrong things, like even till 19 th century even scientists believed that ether is contained in every body {right, i want your comment on this}, which later researches proved doesnt even exist.......why hasnt such a thing happened to Kuran, probably you have not understood our argument brother, our argument is that "if Kuran is book of God it should have made comments 1400 yrs ago which could not have been made then, and if someone else had made those comments then it will yet not have the mistaken beliefs of that person"  {pls go through my and schmikbob dialogues earlier on this same topic}
thus i who was almost an athiest, having such a strict criteria came to believe, it is impossible that this book is not of God, no one else could have said such things. go through my other topics as well.
 
 
 
[QUOTE=Ron Webb] 
Good, but if the statement is not literally true than it can hardly be considered a scientific fact, can it?
 [QUOTE]
 
my brother again you are missing the point, this happens when preconceived notions/biases are let to be riden on the analyses, i said creation of water is not literal but same as that of dust, just as water is found in us, elements that make up dust are found in us too. the first man was literally created from water and dust, we are created from water and dust too but through a process of fertilisation. like the first seed could have been made by say "x" literally but now seeds are made by trees using "x".   
 
 
 
[QUOTE=Ron Webb] 
Skeptics like schmikibob and me will probably argue anyway, but at least if Allah had described the process accurately, then science would have eventually proven him right.
[QUOTE]
 
brother there is nothing in arguing just like that, dont do so,... i am not going into embroyology and Kuran part, world's leading embroyologist like professor keith moore of canada have been bewildered by information of Kuran, you can youtube it and see it for yourself that how accurate Kuran's information is, you would never know more about embroyology than him. science through him has proved Kuran to be true.
 
 
[QUOTE=Ron Webb] 
New members' posts are often delayed to discourage trolls.  It's frustrating, I know, but the moderators have decided it is necessary.
 
i think this should not be done to the topic starters atleast......anyways rules are rules.
The whole world is like Hazrat Umar but no one is like his sister and brother in law.
IP IP Logged
Matt Browne
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2010
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 869
Quote Matt Browne Replybullet Posted: 22 December 2010 at 9:09am
If we view our universe (multiverse) as a program, we can say that theists believe in divine authorship of this program, while atheists believe in a program being capable of writing itself.

 
The bold above is entirely possible
 


The divine authorship is entirely possible as well



Edited by Matt Browne - 22 December 2010 at 9:10am
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt
IP IP Logged
Gibbs
 
Guest Group
Guest Group


Joined: 29 April 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 939
Quote Gibbs Replybullet Posted: 22 December 2010 at 11:12am
Originally posted by Matt Browne

If we view our universe (multiverse) as a program, we can say that theists believe in divine authorship of this program, while atheists believe in a program being capable of writing itself.

 
The bold above is entirely possible
 


The divine authorship is entirely possible as well

 
True. But there is no scientific proof God is an author of this universe, but the probability of this universe creating itself is probable.
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 22 December 2010 at 3:44pm
Originally posted by Ron

Oh please, literally from dust?  And what about clay?  Are we made, literally, from aluminum silicate?


As I said before, dust does not refer to the stuff you find in your home.  It refers to "earth".  What does "earth" contain?  It contains, among other things, the elements (such as carbon) necessary for life to exist.  So in that sense, Adam was created from "dust" or "earth" and so were we. 

Originally posted by Ron

So we can agree that ancient cultures got it wrong.  My question is, why did Allah get it wrong?  Even if He didn't want to use the obvious common word, why couldn't He have said something like "it is He who creates man from a tiny speck in a woman's womb" or something to that effect?  Why would He repeat the same mistake that the people were making?


How are we in agreement?  You say that since they didn't mention something they were unaware of and hence did not have a word for, that means they were wrong, whereas I say that it does not make them wrong.  Likewise, there was no practical reason for Allah to mention these things, and it was not of the utmost importance.  Mentioning semen, which was known to mankind, and saying we are created from sexual intercourse between man and woman, is not wrong.

It is interesting to note, as I mentioned before, that early Muslim scholars interpreted "water" to refer to the "water of male and female".  So, they at least understood that both male and female factors were involved, and they based this on their interpretation of the Quran.  While this interpretation would be correct, I think that it would also be correct to interpret "water" to literally mean H2O, as modern science has proven that all life came from water.  Either way, the Quran would not be wrong. 

Originally posted by Ron

You were one click away from answering your own question.  If you go to the link on the right side of the page you cited, called "The Four Elements", you would read that water is the main component of "All the vital fluids of the body, especially the clear fluids: phlegm, mucus, plasma, lymph and serous and interstitial fluids.  The kidneys, bladder and urinary tract, which pass superfluous Water from the body.  The mucosa of the digestive, respiratory and genitourinary tracts.  The lymphatic system.  The brain and spinal cord."  Yes, phlegm is the humor associated with the regulation of water in the body, but all fluids (and all humors, for that matter) are forms of the element water.


And what's your point?  I already acknowledged that ancient people believed that water was a component of the body, but there is no indication that they believed that mankind was created from water.  For God's sake, they also believed that fire was one of the components!  Was this literal fire?  According to the link you provided, "fire lights up the Sun, Moon, and stars in the celestial firmament.  Fire has brilliance and spirit, and symbolizes the Life Force within us."  Did they believe that man was created from fire as well?  And if so, why didn't the Quran, which you believe is wrong on the matter, not repeat this error?   

Also, the mucosa of the genitourinary tract does not indicate that semen was also considered to be composed of water.  Sure, the tract would include the vas deferens, epididymis and seminal vesicles, but the source says nothing about semen.  It even mentions the kidneys, bladder and urinary tract which "which pass superfluous Water from the body" but does not mention semen which would pass from the reproductive tract.

Originally posted by Ron

But you just agreed with my statement that "Any description of reproduction that claims we are formed from sperm, without even mentioning the ovum, is just plain wrong."


When did I say that?

Originally posted by Ron

Exactly.  Hence my objection to rememberallah's claim that the Quran reported "scientific facts".  I have no problem with the Quran as metaphor, as poetry, or as vague generalizations of natural phenomena.  But scientific facts?  Hardly.


Did you read the whole paragraph?  Here is what I said:

You seem to think that it was a matter of the utmost importance when it really wasn't.  The Quran is not a science book.  It is a book which spells out how Allah wants mankind to live, but it may mention certain facts about the universe which could only be fully  understood by later generations.  Until you can prove that the Arabs had a word for "ovum" as it is understood in embryology, your arguments are pointless. 

You still have not demonstrated that the Arabs and other societies had a word for "ovum" as it is understood in embryology.  Therefore, your insistence that they should have been able to mention it is simply absurd.  They already knew that male and female components were involved.  But, they did not know what the female component was (since it had not yet been discovered) and hence, no word existed which could properly identify it.  As such, there was no reason for Allah to mention something that the Arabic language did not have a word for.  To say otherwise is just as absurd as saying that the Quran should have mentioned computers.
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
schmikbob
Male Agnostic
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 27 June 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 513
Quote schmikbob Replybullet Posted: 23 December 2010 at 8:53pm
rememberallah, you should be careful quoting the Professor Keith Moore interview concerning science in the Quran.  Perhaps you should do a little research into the follow up interviews that were done after the Islamic science apologists had their little interview with him.  I understand that the whole science in the Quran crowd like to quote their version of the original interview but that is certainly not the whole story.
IP IP Logged
Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Online
Posts: 1836
Quote Ron Webb Replybullet Posted: 25 December 2010 at 1:50pm

Originally posted by rememberallah

my brother it wouldnt exactly be wrong, moreover if you svy my home is made of bricks, tell me who would say you are wrong as house is also made of cement, concrete etc. he wouldnt be like vicky the robot of "small wonder" and understand what oyou mean.

My house is made of wood.  The frame, the flooring, the beams of the roof, all are made of wood.  It does have a brick fireplace, but surely no one would consider it to be a true statement if I claimed to live in a house made of bricks.  Even if I pointed out that the the fireplace is essential in heating the house, or that the whole architectural or aesthetic design of the house was centred around the brick fireplace, still it would be wrong to describe it as a brick house.


coming back to paint, but paint can be substituted with wall paper, tiles etc. but sperm can not be substituted with anythng, so issue is not quantity that how much ovum and how much sperm, but importance.  as for the major role a verse compares women to land and man to tilling the land. how beautiful, a farmer only puts seed and water, while the land around the seed {a thousand times bigger} gives back such big big plants, trees etc. the seed is so small and yet irreplaceable. i ope you get the point.

I do get your point, and your point is simply wrong.  The analogy is backwards.  It is the woman who provides the seed, not the man.  The man simply fertilizes it, much as a plant seed is fertilized to begin its development.

 

Thats what we are trying to show you that it has not diverged from scientific facts, you say other civilisations believed that things were created from water, we say they also believed in wrong things, like even till 19 th century even scientists believed that ether is contained in every body {right, i want your comment on this}, which later researches proved doesnt even exist.......why hasnt such a thing happened to Kuran,

But it has, many times.  This (the process of human reproduction) is just one example, but there are many others.  The whole Quranic depiction of cosmology is equally nonsensical (e.g., references in the Quran to the sky as a "roof" or "canopy", stars falling from the sky, a flat earth "spread out like a carpet" with the sun and moon revolving around it).

The reason you don't see these as contradictions is that every time science disproves something in the Quran (or the Bible, or any other religious text) the believers simply abandon the literal interpretation and retreat into metaphor or abstraction.  If science had found that the human body was made of aluminum silicate, you would have been trumpeting the Quran's reference to "clay" as a proof of Quranic science.  Instead, the clay is metaphorical, or just a vague or poetic reference to elemental "earth", while water (dihydrogen oxide) is literal and precise.  Believers always celebrate any minor confirmations of their beliefs, and completely ignore or explain away any disconfirming evidence.


brother there is nothing in arguing just like that, dont do so,...

But you do, don't you?  Aren't you just as skeptical about Hinduism and Mormonism and Zoroastrianism all the the other religions?  How else can we know the truth, if not by questioning?



Edited by Ron Webb - 25 December 2010 at 1:52pm
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 36 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com