The Dutch naturalist Anthony van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) produced lenses powerful enough to prove that many tiny creatures are not spontaneously generated but are produced from eggs. The science of Embryology as we know it today did not discover many of the detailed aspects of human embryonic development until the 1970s, using powerful microscopes, ultra sound and fiber optics technology. See how the Quran described the stages of embryonic development.
"God fashioned man from a small quantity (of sperm)" (16:4)
Fertilization takes place with only one sperm among several tens of million produced by man.
"Then We placed him as a drop in a place of rest" (23:13)
Implantation of the blastocyst in the uterus.
"Then We made the drop into a leech like structure..." (23:14)
This resemblance of the human embryo to a leech is an appropriate description of the human embryo from days 7-24, when it clings to the endometrium of the uterus.
"And He (God) gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding." (32:9)
The internal ears appear before the eyes, and the brain (the sight of understanding) differentiates last.
Dr. E. Marshall Johnson Professor of Anatomy, concluded after studying verses from Quran: "The Quran describes not only the development of external form but emphasizes also the internal stages - the stages inside the embryo of its creation and development, emphasizing major events recognized by contemporary science... so I see nothing in conflict with the concept that divine intervention was involved"
2007-06-22 05:42:04 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I agree, there are lots of things in the Quran that make since and had to be God that wrote it. because the embryos are so small at that stage nobody could have known that detail. even if they cut someone open it would have been to small without microscopes
2007-06-22 05:52:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Mojo's answer is actually pretty darned good. There's a whole "movement" of people trying to **extract** bits of precognition from the Quran, particularly as might pertain to science. It's a semi-coordinated attempt to push a religious agenda, similar to the Intelligent Design movement. Both seek basically to lend the appearance of scientific credibility to religions, though neither religion has any track record of productivity in science, which is ***not*** to say that people who are/were members of those religions didn't do great science. Much of the early western scientists were Christians working in Churches or monestaries. Similarly, many early astronomers and mathematicians were working in Muslim institutions of various sorts. Still, this effort to extract modern day science and precognition out of the Quran is unfortunate. The Quran is a marvelous book (as is the Bible) for what it is, but it's not a scientific treatise. Mojo deserves "Best Answer" votes on this one, folks!
2016-04-01 11:55:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saying something looks like something else, without being specific doesn't prove much. Most of this isn't specific and unimpressive. It's akin to seeing an embryo in a body you hacked apart and saying it looks like chewed bubblegum. Please. If your religion works for you, then that's your path, and I respect it, but putting this stuff out here to be refuted like this means it's going to get refuted. Your whole line of reasoning is illogical and unscientific and only works if you stretch things and ASSUME that people in Muhammad's time were ignorant... they weren't. More knowledge was lost at Alexandria than you could ever imagine, and maybe more than we know now... so I'm far from impressed.
_()_
2007-06-22 06:00:27 · answer #3 · answered by vinslave 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Uh, huh, yeah. Tell allah oh, yeah he has the same problem as the other god and gods he doesn't exist and the quran is not a pillar of knowledge it's just a book that I don't want to read and if it did I know I would find a lot of mistakes in it too.
2007-06-22 05:49:58 · answer #4 · answered by calmlikeatimebomb 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Shukran for the info, brother
2007-06-22 06:00:55 · answer #5 · answered by سيف الله بطل جهاد 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Anybody who spent time hacking women into pieces would have known these things and hacking women to pieces has been human sport for millenia.
2007-06-22 05:50:45 · answer #6 · answered by BAL 5 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Yes. A broken clock is still right twice a day.
2007-06-22 05:46:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
I can't explain anything
You did that perfectly
2007-06-22 08:50:18 · answer #8 · answered by marhama 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋