Miracles of the Qur'an

[Wake up Pak]

I have read a lot of articles based on Galen's work and nowhere anyone discusses his work on embryology.
copied***

Unfortunately for medieval medicine, Galen made critical errors about the heart and blood vessels that remained virtually unchallenged for 1,400 years. Because his
knowledge was derived for the most part from animals rather than human dissection, he made many
mistakes, especially concerning the internal organs. One of Galen's most notable mistakes was to
think that the heart was divided in two parts. He maintained that blood permeated the septum
between left and right ventricle and persisted in the Hippocratic misconception that the body's fluids
were composed of an equilibrium of four humours (black bile, yellow bile, blood, and phlegm) and
the rationale of medicine was to restore any disease-causing imbalance. Galen accepted the common
view that disease was caused by an imbalance of these 'four humours' in the human body.

 

[Wake up Pak]

The second chapter examines embryology from Galen of Pergamos through the Renaissance. Galen mainly wrote from 150 AD to 180 AD and as well known as Galen is, he is only afforded several pages by Needham. This no doubt reflects on the lack of attention given to the embryo by Galen during this time period. Galen is credited by the author as being a vitalist (life arises from or contains a nonmaterial vital principle) and teleologist (all life and actions are driven by an ultimate purpose) whose main contribution to embryology was his steadfast belief that the umbilical cord was necessary for respiration. After Galen, Needham briefly addresses embryology among the Arabs, but it is a mere page in length. Needham insists that the Arab world may have been successful in optics and astronomy, but not in embryology.

 

[Mughal1]

 

[Vitamin_C]

Right, that means we are not justified in claiming that the verse in the Quran about altitude sickness has divine origins. Our position would be disbelief on both POV's until we have more information. Thats the point I am trying to make.

And this is where your whole exercise fail, if I cannot prove the information was readily available and Mohammad had access to it doesn't mean divine revelation. I can't prove my POV but I won't believe yours regardless.

Than what is the point of all this when you come in with a "don't bother me with the facts, my mind is already made up" attitude.

 

[Citizen X]

Right, that means we are not justified in claiming that the verse in the Quran about altitude sickness has divine origins. Our position would be disbelief on both POV's until we have more information. Thats the point I am trying to make.

Nope thats YOUR pov. You have not proven with any certainty from your own chosen criteria. 1) That knowledge was readily available 2) He had easy access to it.

All you have done is, I can't prove this according to my own set criteria, but I will also not accept your argument because I have failed in mine.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Okay lets start with the point of information being available about altitude sickness 1400 years ago...

Premise 1: Do you agree with the Australian govt article that altitude sickness can occur at altitudes of 2000-3000m?

Premise 2: Do you agree that there are thousands of mountains and passes in Euro Asia which have altitudes of 2000-3000m (including 50 in Saudi Arabia mostly in Hejaz region)?

Premise 3: Do you agree that thousands of people ie travelers, soldiers, traders, pilgrims etc have been exposed to altitudes of 2000-3000m in those above mentioned mountains over thousands of years including the otziman?

Premise 4: Do you agree that from those thousands of people who have been exposed to altitudes of 2000m+ that atleast some of them have experienced symptoms of altitude sickness including hypoxia and lack of oxygen before 1400 years ago?

If those above mentioned premises are correct then this conclusion follows:

Conclusion: It is possible that people may have known about altitude sickness long before 1400 years by natural means such as directly experiencing it first hand or by accounts by people who have experienced it.

Which supports my argument that if you have a possibility of a natural explanation, you cannot assert a supernatural explanation without first ruling out the natural possibility.

Let me know which premise you do not agree with and why?

Nope thats YOUR pov. You have not proven with any certainty from your own chosen criteria. 1) That knowledge was readily available 2) He had easy access to it.

All you have done is, I can't prove this according to my own set criteria, but I will also not accept your argument because I have failed in mine.

 

[Wake up Pak]

Thats from those same pages. Its exactly whats in Quran but with more detail.

But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time.

The first is that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails (Arabic nutfah). At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen.

But when it has been filled with blood (Arabic alaqa), and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus.

The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts (Arabic mudghah). You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches.

The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed (Arabic ‘a new creation’) ...


... The time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time ... it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other, and along their entire length it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on which it caused flesh to grow

For Reference This Is What Quran Says:

23:13-14
"placed him as (a drop of) sperm (nutfah) in a place of rest, firmly fixed; then

We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood (alaqa); then out of that clot We made a (foetus) lump (mudghah),

then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh;

then We developed out of it another creature."

I have read it, again and again, it does not confirm the embryology in any way.
You can be fooled but not the sane minded people who can tell what he is talking about is blood circulation with nothing to do with embryology.
All the articles on Galen's life and achievements only point to his major contribution in the circulatory system and that too with discrepancies and flaws.
I should have not continued any more discussion on it but i thought maybe you will learn a thing or two.
Have a good day!

 

[Citizen X]

Okay lets start with the point of information being available about altitude sickness 1400 years ago...

Premise 1: Do you agree with the Australian govt article that altitude sickness can occur at altitudes of 2000-3000m?

Premise 2: Do you agree that there are thousands of mountains and passes in Euro Asia which have altitudes of 2000-3000m (including 50 in Saudi Arabia mostly in Hejaz region)?

Premise 3: Do you agree that thousands of people ie travelers, soldiers, traders, pilgrims etc have been exposed to altitudes of 2000-3000m in those above mentioned mountains over thousands of years including the otziman?

Premise 4: Do you agree that from those thousands of people who have been exposed to altitudes of 2000m+ that atleast some of them have experienced symptoms of altitude sickness including hypoxia and lack of oxygen before 1400 years ago?

If those above mentioned premises are correct then this conclusion follows:

Conclusion: It is possible that people may have known about altitude sickness long before 1400 years by natural means such as directly experiencing it first hand or by accounts by people who have experienced it.

Which supports my argument that if you have a possibility of a natural explanation, you cannot assert a supernatural explanation without first ruling out the natural possibility.

Let me know which premise you do not agree with and why?

At these tame altitudes you mostly get a headache or a nose bleed at worse. Nothing like being starved of oxygen to breath. Mountain climbing really wasn't a thing at all. Travelers took the easiest routes, trough valleys and low lands. There are no huge great mountain ranges to cross from Europe to all the way across to Arabia. And there are no mountains high enough in that entire vast vicinity that can feel like your chest is being squeezed and you are literally grasping for every breath.

And there is absolutely no documentary proof of any of the above from that time either.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Can you provide a source to back up your claim that shortness of breath cannot occur at 2000m-3000m above sea level?

At these tame altitudes you mostly get a headache or a nose bleed at worse. Nothing like being starved of oxygen to breath.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Silk road that connected South East Asia to South Europe and Arabian since 200 bc which is almost 1000 years before Islam. The route passes through elevations of over 3000m+

Humans have been travelling through high altitudes for thousands of years.

And there is absolutely no documentary proof of any of the above from that time either.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Can you read the last sentence of the first paragraph and tell me what it says, is it about blood circulation or about fetus of fetus ie embryology.

But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time.


Tell me again, is that talking about 4 periods of blood circulation or 4 periods of fetus creation?

How do you expect to have an argument when you cant even read? And if you can read you do not understand simple English?

I could never understand that Pakistan's iq is 84 meaning half of the population has an IQ below 84 (75 is considered borderline retarded) and I am facing the full brunt of the lower half of that IQ scale on this thread.

I have read it, again and again, it does not confirm the embryology in any way.
You can be fooled but not the sane minded people who can tell what he is talking about is blood circulation with nothing to do with embryology.
All the articles on Galen's life and achievements only point to his major contribution in the circulatory system and that too with discrepancies and flaws.
I should have not continued any more discussion on it but i thought maybe you will learn a thing or two.
Have a good day!

 

[Vitamin_C]

Sometimes there are no easy routes other than going through the mountain ranges. That's why high altitude mountain passes such as Karakorum pass exists. Humans have been using mountain passes for this very reason for thousands of years.

Travelers took the easiest routes, trough valleys and low lands.

 

[Mughal1]

Sometimes there are no easy routes other than going through the mountain ranges. That's why high altitude mountain passes such as Karakorum pass exists. Humans have been using mountain passes for this very reason for thousands of years.

Dear vitamin c, please try to understand the main point in this whole issue. A simple question that is posed by minds of all higher level thinking people is, where did all this come from which we call creation or universe etc etc? So our problems is, how to answer this question in a comprehensive way possible for us human beings so that we are reasonably satisfied with the answer.

The way you are expressing yourself in this regard, it seems this question does not bother you at all. Had it bothered you, you will have tried to tackle it the way it made sense and not the way it does not make any sense at all.

You seek evidence or proof yet you have little or no idea what evidence or proof really is in this regard. I have explained the issue of proof and proving in my posts to which I have provided links. However it needs someone really sincere who has time to spend on understanding the whole issue.

Our basic question is, what will prove for us with reasonable certainty or for sure that there is really a God or there is none at all?

As I understand it, you are saying we will start from a neutral point ie look at the evidence and follow where it leads. My problem with your approach is, how can you look at something without having any purpose in your mind to begin with? This is why I asked you to chose one of the two possibilities. Unless we choose one of these possibilities we cannot take this discussion any further no matter how hard we try. We get stuck as to why we are looking for the evidence to begin with.

This is why I proposed the right way for looking at this issue. It is because if we start from the position that God does not exist for definite then the answer results in further questions like how can we be sure that there truly is no God? This whole way of trying to negate possibility of God's existence flies back on our faces. Why? Because we human beings no matter how clever we think we are, we are not that capable that we could know for sure there is no God.

This is why starting even from that position also leads us back to the idea of possibility of existence of God. In other words because it is not within our capability to know directly for sure that there is no God, we are forced by reason to look for God indirectly on basis of possibility of God's existence instead.

As soon as we do that we come across two things a)alleged creation by God and b)alleged revelation by God.

This is where it becomes absolutely necessary to explore these two independent evidences to the best of our abilities faithfully or sincerely.

Now the problems start ie we are not Gods but humans. Humans do not know a thing when they are born but normally they are born capable of learning and doing things. However it takes us ages to grasp things and that is still the case with us even if we really try to learn things sincerely. Not only that we are prone to making countless errors and mistakes along the way. If you are not sure, see how many times you fell over when your parents tried to teach you how to sit up or to stand up or to walk etc etc.

This is the way we are ie naturally prone to human errors. This is why in serious matters we need to be very careful how we make claims that may change our lives in a very negative way instead of changing it in a very positive way.

This should explain to all of us very clearly how we should look at the available two evidences ie creation and revelation so that we end up as satisfied as we should be with our findings one way or the other,

Now the question arises, how to study creation and revelation properly?

This is the proper context in which discussions on creation and revelation must take place or we waste each other's time as well as end up confusing each other more and more. The main point is, we should never try to find out things the way they cannot be found out at all. That will simply waste our time and effort for sure.

regards and all the best.

 

[Mughal1]

 

[Mughal1]

In one of my posts above, I said the quran is a book of science. Why? Because if it is said to be a revelation from God then it has to be scientific as God ought to know things he has created with full knowledge about them. Therefore all we need to do is check it out as far as it is humanly possible for us on that basis to see if it really is what it claims to be ie a book from God and not a human work in the name of God to fool humanity.

However before we could start examining this book carefully we need to ask ourselves, what are we looking for in the book so that we could know for sure it is from God or it is not from God but is man made? Here again we must work out a way to examine this book properly or we will end up without any proper conclusion about it. It is because randomly reading this book is not going to be any use.

This is why we must come up with a context in which we must scrutinise this book. If we have no context or we cannot come up with one that is reasonably good enough for this purpose to decide this matter then we can never scrutinise this book to begin with. This is why the question, what is the context in which we must examine this book?

Not only that but we must also examine the universe in which we live to see if it is created by a God or is there any other better explanation for its existence. So one can see it is not a simple thing to understand the alleged creation or revelation of God rather one has to be reasonably well prepared for this purpose.

In anything we try to learn or understand we have to apply trial and error method always and there is no escape possible from this method. The same has to happen in case of learning about creation as well as revelation. This means we will have to try and make as good sense of things as is possible for us within whatever ways and means are available to us.

All this means is, putting things together in various ways to see how they could be fitted together perfectly as models, separately as well as a part of each other. It is a process like that of putting together pieces of a giant jig saw puzzle to build a complete picture. In case of creation and revelation we have two giant jig saw puzzles which should be complete separately as individuals as well as they must fit together with each other neatly.

This should make it absolutely clear to us as to why we need to work with possibilities or suppositions till we end up with a solution of the problem for sure. I use an example of a dead body found in a place without any eye witness for explaining this process of investigation.

This clearly shows why atheists are terribly wrong in demanding certainty about things right from the start or get go. It can never be the case for human beings because all our life time knowledge comes from building on possibilities and suppositions bit by bit till we end up with a working model of something we are looking for. This is a very slow learning process.

Since we have two separate evidences allegedly from God ie creation and revelation therefore not only they need to be looked at individually independent of one another but also together to see how they fit together. If they fit together perfectly then we have our answer to question God exists or not. This is how far we human beings can go in this respect.

Now the question, how should the creation and revelation fit together individually as well as a part of each other if they are truly from the same source?

 

[Mughal1]

How to study the creation of God? First of all, it is not possible for any individual human being to be able to learn each and everything God has created in each and every sense or in each and every way. This is not made possible for individuals. However humanity as a whole can work together in this regard and work out things about individual things if people so choose.

This is why if anyone claims one knows all there is to know about creation of God then any such claim by any human beings is false. The quran states that one can only learn as much as one is granted the potential to learn by God.

This is why people can choose what they want to learn and why they want to learn it as individuals or groups. God has given everything to mankind to use it for doing what God wants mankind to do.

The question is, what God wants people to do? The answer of this question can only and only come from the quran and not any other book. Why not from any other book? Because all other books are written by people. All one has to do is read those books and see who is talking in those books. It is not God but people eg see https://www.sacred-texts.com .

Only and only the quran has a writing style that shows God is the speaker in this text. Not only that the quran also states it is from God within its pages repeatedly. Although mere style of writing on its own does not prove it is a text from God but a lot of such points do because they cannot be dismissed as a coincident. One has to ask oneself how did other writers of their scriptures did not think of writing their books in that style with that information which is found only and only in the quran?

Another point the quran makes is, it calls God advised way of life deen of islam. Other scriptures have no such verses in them that name their ways of life in such a clear way. Again one has to ask, is that a coincident? Likewise the quran states purpose of creation very clearly not only for the universe but also for the things in the universe as well as human beings. Is that a coincident? Not only that but the quran goes on to tell human beings how they can fulfil the purpose for which God has created them. This way of thinking and doing things for people is called deen of islam by the quran.

The quran tells mankind to study the creation of God not just for knowing how it is all set up or put together to work in a particular way but so that by knowing all this human beings could learn how to fit in within this God created world properly. That way human beings will come to know what are the dangers posed by this universe for humanity which will harm or destroy human beings if they will remain ignorant about them as well as what are benefits which people can have by knowing how to use provided things properly.

Moreover the quran also provides humanity with guidelines for a proper constitution and its related laws so that people bring about a proper constitution and its laws in order to base themselves upon it and to regulate themselves thereby properly as a proper human community. This is how the quran proves, it is a revealed word of God and not a human creation. This is the over all proper context for studying the message in the quran. The quran is not a book of worship of God or a holy religious scripture the way atheists, agnostics or hindus, parsis, jews, chrisitans or muslims etc etc take it in general and argue over it with each other foolishly without having any idea at all as to how to understand it properly. For a detailed explanation of things about the quran, deen of islam and pakistan see HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.

 

[Pakistani1947]

The embroyolgy in Quran is copied word for word from Galen who was a Greek biologist. Galen's work is based on writing on Embryology by Greek Physician named Hippocrates. This work was writen almost 1000 years before Quran and describes it in much more detail than Quran.

Watch following video where Dr. Keith Moore, (who accepted Islam after finding facts in Qur'an about embryology, where were recently discovered by modern Science), who got Grand JCB award (a very distinguish award) in Canada, he is comparing the verses of Qur'an with advance knowledge of Embryology.

 

[Vitamin_C]

He says thay no one describes the stages of embreyo development before 700 AD. A simple google search will reveal that this is false.

Hippocrates described the stages in embreyo development almost 1000 years before Quran. This same embreyology was taught be Galen in Mediteranian, Arabia and Persia centuries before Islam and is the same embreyology that is mentioned in Quran.

It is important to note that both Quran and Galen are wrong based on modern discoveries in embreyology.

Watch following video where Dr. Keith Moore, (who accepted Islam after finding facts in Qur'an about embryology, where were recently discovered by modern Science), who got Grand JCB award (a very distinguish award) in Canada, he is comparing the verses of Qur'an with advance knowledge of Embryology.

 

[Pakistani1947]

He says thay no one describes the stages of embreyo development before 700 AD. A simple google search will reveal that this is false.

Hippocrates described the stages in embreyo development almost 1000 years before Quran. This same embreyology was taught be Galen in Mediteranian, Arabia and Persia centuries before Islam and is the same embreyology that is mentioned in Quran.

It is important to note that both Quran and Galen are wrong based on modern discoveries in embreyology.

Please read the following article. This article was written by Nadeem Arif Najmi, with contributions from Dr. Maurice Bucaille, Prof. Keith Moore, Moiz Amjad, Dr. Omar Abdul Rehman, Ahmed A. Abd Allah, Abdullah Ibn Adam, Mohd.Elfie. The article was written in response to criticism by Dr Lactantius on the topic of Embryology in Qur'an.

A Muslim response to criticism of Embryology in the Noble Quran.

 

[Vitamin_C]

I read the first few paragraphs and stopped because they took the verse that saud extract of fluid to mean sperm.

Sperm is not fluid its a cell. Fluid refers to semen which is the same thing that the Greeks taught about.

This is the type of intellectual dishonesty you see from people who already have made their conclusikn and try to twist evidence to support their conclusion. This is not how a rational mind works.

They are taking words in the Quran twisting their meanings in order to conform them to modern discoveries in science such as sperm cell and female egg. There is no tafsir or translation of Quran that ever talk about that. Now after the fact when modern science discovered these things they are twisting the meaning to make it seem as though that is what Quran had being saying all along when it never did. Does that intellectual dishonesty not make you angry?

Please read the following article. This article was written by Nadeem Arif Najmi, with contributions from Dr. Maurice Bucaille, Prof. Keith Moore, Moiz Amjad, Dr. Omar Abdul Rehman, Ahmed A. Abd Allah, Abdullah Ibn Adam, Mohd.Elfie. The article was written in response to criticism by Dr Lactantius on the topic of Embryology in Qur'an.

A Muslim response to criticism of Embryology in the Noble Quran.