Desi Cartman Posted April 10, 2008 Author Posted April 10, 2008 its religion and a matter of belief. Nothing more nothing less
THX_1138 Posted April 10, 2008 Posted April 10, 2008 In popular usage, a theory is just a vague and fuzzy sort of fact.But to a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that *explains* existing facts and predicts new ones. For instance, today I saw the Sun rise. This is a fact. This fact is explained by the theory that the Earth is round and spins on its axis while orbiting the sun. This theory also explains other facts, such as the seasons and the phases of the moon, and allows me to make predictions about what will happen tomorrow. This means that in some ways the words "fact" and "theory" are interchangeable. The organisation of the solar system, which I used as a simple example of a theory, is normally considered to be a fact that is explained by Newton's theory of gravity. And so on. A hypothesis is a tentative theory that has not yet been tested. Typically, a scientist devises a hypothesis and then sees if it "holds water" by testing it against available data. If the hypothesis does hold water, the scientist declares it to be a theory. All these things mentioned by you was a theory and now it is considered to be fact and it can't take "U" turn. Big Bang theory was a theory but now its an established Fact... even though we use the word theory along with Big Bang. We say "bring ur prove if ur truthful" just by saying it u can't say its an outdated religion. Produce one and only one outdated thing which u find in our religious scriptures. Judge a religion by its religious scriptures not by the people who follow it. allah created man from mud... care to demonstrate how?
CC1981 Posted April 11, 2008 Posted April 11, 2008 In embryonic stages, the reproductive organs of the male and female, ie. the testicles and the ovaries, begin their development near the kidney exactly between the spinal column and the eleventh and twelfth ribs. Later they descend; the female gonads (ovaries) stop in the pelvis while the male gonads continue their decent before birth to reach the scrotum outside the body through the inguinal canal. Even after the embryonic stage after the decent of the reproductive organ, these organs receive their nerve supply and blood supply (from the Aorta) and lymphatic drainage which is in the area between the backbone (spinal column) and the ribs That is a lot of justification of what is quite clearly, an incorrect statement in the koran...the Koran didn't say that the organs originate between the pelvis- it clearly says that a drop, originating between the ribs and the backbone is the cause of life....now, it is FACT that the 'drop' that conceives life DOES NOT orginate between the ribs and the backbone...the drop itself originates in the gonads, which when the drop originates, is already outside the body for men and in the pelvis for the women. Sry its not good that u call a author of Quran as Fanatic because its the word of GOD That is a beleif, not a fact. That beleif is there because you were told that, not because there is any empirical evidence to support that. "A malecha (belonging to a foreign country and speaking a foreign language) spiritual teacher will appear with his companions. His name will be Mohammad. Raja (Bhoj) after giving this Maha Dev Arab (of angelic disposition) a bath in the Panchgavya and the Ganga water (i.e. purifying him of all sins) offered him the present of his sincere devotion and showing him all reverence said, "I make obeisance to thee. O ye! The pride of mankind, the dweller in Arabia, Ye have collected a great force to kill the Devil and you yourself have been protected from the malecha opponents." Nice read, except that it is a fabrication of Islamists...there is no names mentioned in the Bhavishya puraaan, nevermind a name specific as Muhammad. The Sanskrit word used is Sushrama, which means praiseworthy or well praised which in Arabic means Muhammad (pbuh). Again, quite funny,because the woord 'praiseworthy' is also the cognate for Mithra, for Zarathustra and even for Gautam... even during this age of science u can't prove it going against the ESTABLISHED science. I have already proven it. To a dumb f*ck the setting sun looks like its going in a bubbling pool. To another, sperm originates between the spine and ribs...proof enough that the koran is going against established science.
Mr. Wicket Posted April 11, 2008 Posted April 11, 2008 CC, you're banging on a brick wall here. (And get on MSN)
mhr123 Posted April 11, 2008 Posted April 11, 2008 allah created man from mud... care to demonstrate how? The Qur’an refers to the lowly beginnings of a human being from a drop of sperm, in several verses including the following verse from Surah Al-Qiyamah: "Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (in lowly form)"? [Al-Qur’an 75:37] The Qur’an also mentions in several places that human beings were created from dust. The following verse makes a reference to the origin of human beings: "(Consider) that We created you out of dust". [Al-Qur’an 22:5] We now know that all the elements present in the human body (i.e. the constituent elements of the human body) are all present in the earth in small or great quantities. This is the scientific explanation for the Qur’anic verse that says that man was created from dust. In certain verses, the Qur’an says that man was created from sperm, while in certain other verses it says that man was created from dust. However this is not a contradiction. Contradiction means statements, which are opposite or conflicting and both cannot be true simultaneously. In certain places the Qur’an also says that man was created from water. For instance in Surah Al-Furqan it says: "It is He Who has created man from water". [Al-Qur’an 25:54] Science has proved all the three statements to be correct. Man has been created from sperm, dust as well as water. Suppose I say that in order to make a cup of tea one needs water. One also needs tealeaves or tea powder. The two statements are not contradictory since both water and tealeaves are required in order to make a cup of tea. Furthermore if I want sweet tea I can even add sugar. Thus there is no contradiction in the Qur’an when it says that man is created from sperm, dust and water. It is not a contradiction but a contradistinction. Contradistinction means speaking about two different concepts on the same subject without conflict. For instance if I say that the man is always truthful and a habitual liar, it is a contradiction, but if I say that a man is always honest, kind and loving, then it is a contradistinction.
mhr123 Posted April 11, 2008 Posted April 11, 2008 CC, you're banging on a brick wall here. (And get on MSN) Yah since he is been blind folded ...
mhr123 Posted April 11, 2008 Posted April 11, 2008 That is a lot of justification of what is quite clearly' date=' an incorrect statement in the koran...the Koran didn't say that the organs originate between the pelvis- it clearly says that a drop, originating between the ribs and the backbone is the cause of life....now, it is FACT that the 'drop' that conceives life DOES NOT orginate between the ribs and the backbone...the drop itself originates in the gonads, which when the drop originates, is already outside the body for men and in the pelvis for the women.[/quote'] http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=100 That is a beleif' date=' not a fact. That beleif is there because you were told that, not because there is any empirical evidence to support that.[/quote'] When we study the Quran even superficially from the viewpoint of its wording, styles, and meaning, we will certainly conclude that it is completely different from all the other books in the world. The Quran, which he brought, has challenged all mankind with all their literary geniuses and scientists, from the first day of its revelation to the Last Day, to produce a like of it or even a single chapter of it. It is an established, undeniable fact that the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, was unlettered. Whereas the Quran, which he brought, has challenged all mankind with all their literary geniuses and scientists, from the first day of its revelation to the Last Day, to produce a like of it or even a single chapter of it. The revelation of the Quran lasted 23 years. It is inconceivable that any book written by a mortal being in 23 years, one which is a book of Divine truths, metaphysics, religious beliefs and worship, prayer, law and morality, a book fully describing the other life, a book of psychology, sociology, epistemology, and history, and a book containing scientific facts and the principles of a happy life, does not have any contradictory points. Whereas, the Quran openly declares that it has no contradictions at all and therefore is a Divine Book: Will they not then ponder on the Quran? If it had been from other than God they would have found therein much contradiction and incongruity. (al-Nisa’, 4.82) [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVIXf7Crpe4]YouTube - Qur'an is the best miracle[/ame] Nice read, except that it is a fabrication of Islamists...there is no names mentioned in the Bhavishya puraaan, nevermind a name specific as Muhammad. will reply to this soon with the sanskrit wording , as i have it at my home ( i am at office now) Again, quite funny,because the woord 'praiseworthy' is also the cognate for Mithra, for Zarathustra and even for Gautam... I have already proven it. To a dumb f*ck the setting sun looks like its going in a bubbling pool. To another, sperm originates between the spine and ribs...proof enough that the koran is going against established science. Quran is referring to what it appeared to Zul Qarnain.U can't prove that quran says Sun set in murky water . It is just suggesting what it appeared to him. And kindly use nice words when we r discussing a nice topic brother , we are just sharing our views .
CC1981 Posted April 11, 2008 Posted April 11, 2008 Yah since he is been blind folded ... Sorry but thats laughable. A person who believes a book to be the word of God simply because he/she was brougth up since childhood to believe that, who ignores contradictions like ' the sun sets in a muddy pool at the end of the earth', 'sperm originates between backbone and ribs', etc. has no right to call others blindfolded, since it is THAT person who is blindfolded and refusing to see reason and contradiction in his/her faith. Your justification is in similar vein when christians try to justify that the earth is not flat according to the bible, despite there being a categoric phrase saying ' and blahblah climbed this tree and saw all the dominions of mankind, satan took Jesus on top of blahblah mountain and showed him all the domains of mankind, that he'd offer to Jesus if he bowed to Satan'. Your defence is no different and to any logical and neutral person, the Koran is most categorically wrong in its concept of where the sperm originates, because as i said, it CLEARLY states that the drop which creates life originates between the ribs and the backbone...which is COMPLETELY FALSE...your spin about how its talking about the testes/ovaries before they descend to their final location is a good try but still laughably inadequate, since the testes/ovaries are NOT producing a drop of sperm/ovum before they descend to their final location. And since the Koran most categorically says that the drop originates between the ribs and backbone and not the organ, it most categorically is incorrect. But i don't expect someone brainwashed since childhood to acknowledge that, really. Oh and i am yet to see a response to why God in his infinte wisdom chose one of the poorest and ill-conceived language (Arabic) to be his mode of instruction. If God is perfect and God's commands are perfect, then there is only ONE language in mankind's knowledge that would be an adequate language for the perfect instruction: Sanskrit, since it is the ONLY language for humans that is syntactically and grammatically perfect- perfect enough for even machines to understand. But nevermind Sanskrit, even languages like Greek, Latin, Farsi, etc. are FAR FAR superior in syntactical and grammatical quality than Arabic... For those who don't know, Arabic is a pretty messed up language- the meanings of the words are not empiric, word construction or sentence construction is not subject or verb oriented, it is completely contextual. Ie, one word can mean something radically different as 'struggle, murderous spree, suffering, genocide' all depending on context (the word here: jihaad). That words have synonyms is not the issue here- words with multiple meaning are all cognates- meaning that their multiple meanings will be related or similar to the core meaning. Eg: Ambar (in Bengali) : it can mean sky, atmosphere, air or even outer space....but all these meanings are inter-related and cognative of atmosphere. But if it were Arabic, 'ambar' would mean ' sky, night, your momma, spoon and kettle', all depending on the context of the word's usage. If folks have ever wondered how there are zillion different sects of Islam- all who's clergy denounces each other as Kaffirs and hates each other (shias, Sunnis, Ahmadiyyas, Sufis, etc), its simply because of the language the Koran is written in: Arabic. That language is such a pi$$ poor language in its concept, that it is chock-full of ambiguity and contextual meaning, leaving people to freely interpret and contradict one-another. But hey, if you think about it, Arab world had zero culture in the ancient times and so it makes sense that their language, just like their culture, was distinctly stunded/under-developed. ( by Arab world, i mean the arab lands- aka, land south of Mesopotamia, since Mesopotamia,Levant, Egypt and Ariana, all of which are predominantly 'arabised' in philosophy now were NOT Arab before the genocidal muslim armies of the Rashidun Caliphate went on their murderous spree. I find it almost cosmic in its irony that the murderous bloodthirsty Rashidun Caliphate was finally destroyed by a group even more murderous, bloodthirsty and genocidal but not under any pretensions of their 'Godliness'- the Mongols.) So, all in all, it boggles the mind that the so-called 'all powerful, all knowing, omnipotent God' would resort to sending his message through one of the worst languages mankind has the misfortune of being stuck with.
CC1981 Posted April 11, 2008 Posted April 11, 2008 [ From your link]: In response, among a few other things, I was told that although the male sperm is formed in the testes, yet the blood supply which, obviously, is integral to the making of the sperm comes from between the ribs and the back. I was also told by one of my doctor friends that the cells that form the sperm originate from between the ribs and the back. If this is true, then the words of the Qur'an are not scientifically incorrect, as the words "emanating from a place between the (lower) back and the (lower) ribs", do not necessarily imply "emanating in its final shape" only, but can also cover "initial emanation". 1. The cells that form the sperm originate from the TESTES...which are at NO POINT between the ribs and back, even in embryonic stage 2. The blood supply stems from the heart- so whats the point of mentioning 'ribs and back' in that ???? Furthermore, it is NOT a drop of blood that forms the sperm- the phrase is SPECIFICALLY- 'a drop that originates between the back and the ribs'. Clearly, NO such drop originating between the rib and the back is the sperm or even involved in creation of the sperm. Just admit it, the Koran got it wrong- its not that hard to admit really, man. You are clearly reaching here, because the phrase in the Koran is quite specifically referring to a drop that originates between the ribs and back being the precursor to life. It is clearly NOT talking about blood, because a drop of blood is NOT what it takes to make sperm or keep the gonads alive. Its a lot more than a drop of blood. It is most clearly talking about the sperm but got its origination completely wrong. Just that simple, really. When we study the Quran even superficially from the viewpoint of its wording, styles, and meaning, we will certainly conclude that it is completely different from all the other books in the world. I didn't find that at all, infact, i saw it as the logical continuation of the mumbo-jumbo from the Bible. The New Testament is better written than the Old Testament and the Koran is better written than the previous two..but at the end of the day, its still the same nonsennsical mumbo-jumbo that i have very little time for. Whereas the Quran, which he brought, has challenged all mankind with all their literary geniuses and scientists, from the first day of its revelation to the Last Day, to produce a like of it or even a single chapter of it. That is a claim i find zero merit in. There are buddhist texts, hindu texts (the Gita for example), which are a LOT more scientifically articulate, precise and linguistically flawless than the Koran is, which relies on a really $hitty language- Arabic- as its vehicle. Furthermore, i see no reason why for example, Milton's Paradise lost is a lesser work than the Koran- linguistically, it is superior, conceptually, it is far more linear in its flow and metaphysically, it is just as consistent. So what is the basis of yoru claim, execept for oft-repeated dogma and propaganda of Islamists ?? Whereas, the Quran openly declares that it has no contradictions at all and therefore is a Divine Book: What claims the Koran makes is irrelevant- it is nothing more than an advertisement selling the product really and self-procalimed stuff about aggrandization or perfection is utterly irrelevant. yes, the Koran openly declares it has no contradictions. It is also true that the Koran has many contradictions in it and inaccuracies- two of which i just highlighted- the sun setting in a bubbling muddy pool and sperm originating between rib cage and backbone...both of which are patently false and rather elementary knowledge for God to be aware of, so not to obfuscate or hide behind mumbo-jumbo to try and justify it. Quran is referring to what it appeared to Zul Qarnain.U can't prove that quran says Sun set in murky water . The Koran is endorsing the view point of this Zul-Qarnain and by endorsement, it is implicitly claiming the observations of Zul Karnain to be consistent with the Koran. Thus, the Koran is damning itself by giving credibility to Zil Karnain's ambiguous description and is a tacit admission that the Koran is unknowing of the sun's nature. And kindly use nice words when we r discussing a nice topic brother , we are just sharing our views . Would you prefer me being honest or being nice ? I am not here to please people's sensibilities- i am here to honestly discuss issues and i find it far more efficient to discuss topics honestly rather than have a fake veneer of respectibility thrown in. If you want me to use idiotic phrases like 'pbuh' etc, i don't have a problem using them- just know that it will be insincere - since i have very little respect for the Koran, or the paedophle Prophet or the religion of Islam and its bloodthirsty history.
Holysmoke Posted April 11, 2008 Posted April 11, 2008 Evolution is just a theory ... :hysterical: Yes, and so is the "theory" of relativity :haha:
THX_1138 Posted April 11, 2008 Posted April 11, 2008 :hysterical: Yes, and so is the "theory" of relativity :haha: oye! reposter! maine bole diya hai! get your own material... my stuff is copyrighted and any infringement is delt with considerable violence.
Recommended Posts