Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sirajstc" data-source="post: 7907421" data-attributes="member: 91140">Cheap and vulgar personal attacks on Prof. Moore do nothing at all do  nothing at all to enhance, and rather a lot to detract the intellectual quality of the  critic’s points. If Dr Moore was really so unconvinced about the scientific facts  described by the Quran he would have never agreed for these texts to be available in the referred  libraries-even after November 1996! In any case even if Dr Moore has been hesitant to  share his views with the scientific establishment it’s not hard to understand why, since  he knows full well that he is very likely to be treated with contempt for even  referring to religion in a scientific context in that community. This would have been  the case if Dr Moore were trying to prove the scientific accuracy of the Bible or any  other text, and just the same as that of the Quran. Also, simply because Dr Moore has  ‘directed’ readers to works that disagree with his views does not mean he supports  everything those sources say! The critic has taken a huge leap of logic in making the  assumption that referring to something means you agree with everything that it says. As  such Moore’s references to the work of Needham etc do not prove anything at all. In  conclusion, the Quran contains numerous statements relating to modern embryology that do  not in any way resemble the observations of Greek and Indian physicians, not does it  contain any statements that are scientifically inaccurate. The miraculous  descriptions of the embryo at a time before microscopes were invented still remain an inexplicable  miracle, which can only be explained if we accept the ultimate reality of existence- that  the Quran is the word of God. The critic has made many logical errors in his research and  has failed in disproving the scientific accuracy of the Holy Quran and in linking it  to human sources. The main flaws in his article can be summarised as follows:          His entire  argument rests on his personal interpretations on     of the meanings of key words such as alaqa, nutfah etc. If one uses  alternative     translations that are equally valid in the Arabic language his  entire critique falls apart     completely.      If there is  similarity between sources it does not always     indicate that borrowing has occurred. The critic makes this flawed  assumption. This is not     relevant to the Quran; in any case since there is little similarity  -if there is any at     all- between its embryological descriptions and those of others.      He does not  provide full references, and uses his half-baked     references to give an incorrect or incomplete idea of the sources he  is using.      Most of his  criticisms lack logic, integrity and even     sincerity.      Thus, it is clear that the critic’s attempt has fallen flat on its  face. Despite a very elaborate effort, his article has proven to be lacking substance in  numerous instances. The Quran has once again emerged victorious and its enemies  have once again been proven wrong:    And Say: Truth has come and falsehood vanished, indeed  falsehood is ever bound to vanish (Quran 17:81)</blockquote>

Verification: Hath warak paha keeyada? (hatha wadikireema paha)

Top Bottom