I find it amazing that Muslims can simply read such argumentation and brush it a side as Brianman does. I respond to his reply here on a separate thread since the approach he takes and the arguments he raises are simply too typical of Muslim apologists; hence this becomes a case study.
Brianman wrote: Who do I go to?
Someone like Nabeel who has just completed medical school?
Someone LIKE Hogan who refers to textbooks at best?
Your reply Brianman, completely fails to consider the content, context, details and purpose and simply jumps into the issue by throwing in to it a number of modern Muslim apologist jargon without considering its relevance to the actual topic I raised on this thread.
I don’t know all about Nabeel; he has indeed completed medical school, which indeed gives him a certain insight into a number of these matters such as embryology in the Qur’an; hence Brianman this comment of yours is slightly of the track. Furthermore, this thread was about the atoms hence there is not point to bring Nabeel’s education into this.
As for me using textbooks, I wish you could elaborate on that. The fact is: every scientist conveys his information either through text books or teaching, in any case, to become informed one has to resort to the text or teaching of the experts. However, to elaborate more on the text I utilized, then notice Brian, that I was not conferring with modern scientists about this matter at all (this was not the issue raised in the thread), you could have detected this if you read the original post on the thread properly.
I was looking backward into the science of the Greeks and the Romans prior to the Islamic era and elaborated on the views of these early scientists in comparison with the points raised by the human Qur’anic author. I was not considering modern science, hence you reference to consult with modern experts is also irrelevant.
Hence Your reference to me or Nabeel in terms of medical school or texts as a critical pointers are not matters of relevant to this thread.
But to your information, I did consult with the experts, such as Greek philosophers and in particular the Roman thinker Lucretius and even referred to the book of Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, written 50 BC, how much more professional can this be done? These were the experts of the time!
Anyone who claims that Muhammad pbuh plagiarised scientific works from the Greeks etc. when they have no evidence that Muhammad pbuh received it and viewed these works. Empty arguments from empty hearts.
This can easily be proven, I did write a article on that (do check it out):
Muhammad borrowed heavily from the Greeks and the Jews. North Arabia was in close proximity with Syria and South Arabia, both highly advanced cultures in those days, so were the Jews. All three cultures had great impact upon North Arabia. In fact several of Muhammad’s followers were from these cultures.
But do read my article.
Or do I believe scientists on the very highest level of their specialisation who are the ones who are learned enough to even write books that some random Christian would try to refute?
Since the context of the thread focused on pre-Islamic science I did consult the ‘scientists of the very highest level of their specialisation’ of that time.
This is exactly what I did!
You stated above that I was in error when I referred to text books, now you refer to scientists who write books and you glorify these writings. Am I misunderstanding your previous points or do you contradict yourself?
The scientists who have carried out independent investigations and in many cases, personal experiments? Scientists who work with many other scientists and get their work checked by other top scientists, whether they are Christian or not, before they say "This from the Qur'an, is a miracle"? They even convert to Islam.
The Qur’an reveals nothing new about modern science! What you recon as science in the Qur’an, such as embryology, atoms and sub-atomic particles, the supposed Big Bang in the Qur’an, just to mention a few examples were all discoveries made prior to Islam.
A few scientists may have converted to Islam, but so what? Scientists have also converted to Christianity, and theistic scientists have turned into atheism. Your argument here proves nothing!
Brianman wrote: Scientific accounts before Qur'an have some falsehood's inside it, i.e. Galen's work does contain falsehood. How comes the Qur'an sieves the falsehoods from the truths that modern TOP non-political scientists agree on?
Qur’anic embryology is not without error, it resembles Galen. In fact there were a number of embryologist schools in Muhammad’s time; unfortunately we do not even have access to all the ideas a theories the author of the Qur’an had access to at that time. Funny also that the Syriac Christians were particularly into Galen and embryology and these were the Christians who had a major impact upon North Arabia, its society and Muhammad.
I guess you are referring to Keith Moore when you refer to top scientists. Keith Moore as far as I am told has taken his few references on the Qur’an back. Some say he was paid to make such references, I can’t say that is true, yet we know that Western scientists have been bribed to comment on passages in the Qur’an and some have even refused such cheap misuse of science and exposed the attempt of these Islamic scientist fraud movements. Indeed I know that Keith Moore utterly regrets his previous connection with the Qur’an in this day and age.
Maurice Bucaille who originally began this movement, is not even a Muslim! Why? Because he knows the entire enterprise originally was inaugurated for the sake of hugs sums of money. He tricked the Muslim world with a book that is nothing but fiction. The Muslim world ate these ideas raw and continued in his steps. Only two things have come out of it 1) all the Muslims who remain Muslims by their conviction that these ideas and interpretations of the Qur’an are factual; 2) the laughter of the non-Muslim community.
Brianman wrote: There is nothing for me to say, no need for me to respond to this thread.
There is indeed much more to say: you have not considered the focus or context of the article; you have resorted to irrelevant arguments; and you glorify the deceitful tactics of modern Muslim organisations who bribe scientists and read modern science into a book that originally was depended upon the science of its time.