Embryology in The Holy Qur'an confirmed by Dr Keith Moore

Moore spent some time in Saudi Arabia and wanted to be a VIP. In one of the videos posted above, the camera shows slowly the audience: I didn't see a single woman. All are traditionally clothed men --> video was taken in Saudi Arabia.

Moore has published several text books, but I couldn't find not even a single important scientific article written by him. When I google the full name of Moore (with or without the middle name), all I get is Islamic sites and his 2 paragraph article in wikipedia, but no links to scientific websites (http://www.sciencedirect.com, http://prola.aps.org/,http://www.sciencemag.org/,http://www.nature.com/, http://prb.aps.org/, and many more....). When I googled my own full name, 24 such links show in the search results , when I google one of my professors, 290 such links appear. Moore? - zero. Moore is a "science celebrity", but not a scientist.

Compare how the wikipedia entry for a real scientist (and a muslim!) look like, and the wikipedia entry of a clown Keith Moore. The "Career in science" and "Achievement" sections are missing for a reason: He did not make any. He spent his life being the English speaking clown of the Saudis and other Muslim preacher.....if he is the greatest confirmation that the quran make some kind of sense, then the muslims have a big problem.

All of this thread is absurd - but the greatest absurd is this: If the quran was a scientific book, it is expected that the Muslims of today will be great scientists. one after another. in reality, the opposite happens to be the case.

 

True. Even though muslims outnumber Jews by 100/1 Jewish Nobel prize winners outnumber muslims Nobel prize winner by 20/1.

It seems islams scientific achievements are not only not great, they are substandard.

Of course, the reason for the substandard achievements in science could be socioeconomic which, while a valid excuse, says something else about islam, that it's a religion of poverty.

ironically the Nobel prize which has been awarded to most muslims is the Nobel prize for peace, no seriously. A prize which is almost entirely honorary and requires no understanding of science at all. And to show how ludicrous this is, yasser arrafat was awarded one.

 

Not much to his Wiki page, is there? It's kind of an awkward position for a scientist to put himself in, to be paid by the Saudi government to validate quran versus with embryology and science. That's like coming up with the conclusion first, then looking for ways to substantiate the conclusion. I'm not sure about his credentials, or lack of, but that in itself says a lot about him. Now that he's not getting paid, he suddenly remembers that Muhammad's ideas in the quran, seem to be copied from Galen. Heh.

 

Now that's really a dump try.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore

Its good you know that you are a big joke...

As you have mentioned, they are Shiite's and im not, the majority of Muslims are Sunnites and they and Islam are not responsible for what some people do.

Again, another dumper try.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore

References:
1. ^ "History University of Toronto - Division of Anatomy. http://www.surg.med.utoronto.ca/ANAT/history.html. Retrieved on 2009-02-11.
2. ^ American Association of Clinical Anatomists – Past Presidents
3. ^ "AACA Awards – Honored Member American Association of Clinical Anatomists. http://www.clinicalanatomy.org/honoredmembers.html. Retrieved on 2009-02-11
4. ^ "Honored Member Award 1994 Keith L. Moore, MSc, PhD, FIAC, FRSM American Association of Clinical Anatomists. http://www.clinicalanatomy.org/honored/moore.html. Retrieved on 2009-02-11
5. # ^ Keith Moore honored with Henry Gray/Elsevier Distinguished Educator Award

And here are other Scientists Comments on Scientific Miracles in the Quran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUUPYs0gElU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOYpjZywUPA&feature=related

 

Why bother posting Dr. Keith Moore's credentials, if he now believes the words in the quran are copied from a greek physician? It's not really an attack on Muhammed specifically, as he only parroted back what was known by medical scholars before him. The "trusted" website you provided most likely knows this, they are just far more interested in attracting converts and believers, than telling the truth. Even you, why are you not even interested in researching this? Dodara, you have been nice, and for that I don't want to fight with you. Though, you keep posting these links to Islam. I know, why don't you convert to atheism? Atheism is a miracle, it's wonderful and scientific, you will be so happy. Here's some links to help you get started...

http://godbegone.blogspot.com/
http://www.atheists.org/
http://www.atheist.net/

 

Now, this theory has nothing to do with logic or even with an open mind.

The universe came from an RNA molecular and its non sense theory, but lets suppose for a second its a correct theory.

Where did the RNA molecular came from ?

From Nucleotides and where did the nucleotide came from and so on and so on and so on...

What is logic is that:
Every creation need a creator, if i come to you with a car or a tv, etc and asked where did it come from or how was it made or etc... the answer would be someone create it or manufacture it, etc...

But the answer wouldn't be the car came from metal and it was formed !!!

So these kind of answers atheists provide have nothing to do with science or even logic.

 

So lets extend your argument and ask "where did the creator come from?", and where did his creator come from? and where did his creator's creator come from? if you believe that the 15 axioms of mathematics are right - we have a logical contradiction - since the existence of a unique creator requires the breaking the principle of mathematical induction, extended to the space of entities from the space of natural numbers. (I hope you understand what I say...)

In the core-foundation of science stands the assumption that "super-natural" phenomena simply don't exist. Everything came to exist - somehow, somewhen, and the essence of science is to go out and find out. It is actually doing a hell of a job.

I will rephrase the above to simpler words:
You say that nothing comes from itself, it has to be created. But at the same time you say: except the creator. The science of Mathematics do not take "special cases" in its foundations. Either a theorem is true for all cases, or its false. I hope you understand....

 

he does, but he will pretend not to. It's really the only option left after he has invoked an agent which violates the very law he is claiming required it's invention.

If everything needs a cause then so does his god, and if his god doesn't then neither does the universe. which renders his god either redundant or impossible. he really didn't think this through.

he has one card left, he could pull all the stops out and claim "well god is magic" like they usually do when their attempt at logical thought has been shown to make absolutely no sense at all.

 

You do not get it, do you!

No one could, no one will never know where did the creator came from.

Its the same idea with the unscientific RNA suggestion and i wont call it even a theory.

Where did RNA came from, you will answer it came from something else and i will keep asking where did the something came from and so on until you can not answer.

But we know by logic, science and practical life that a creation need a creator.

Its simple:
Car = Manufacture
New Born = Man + Women
Creation = Creator

 

"Scientific suggestion" == "theory". (by definition)

I answer with my own question:

you can answer my question exactly as I can answer yours. They are philosophically parallel.

you have no idea what login is. Because under the same logic of your Lemma, the creator need a creator too. Or else - "creator" and "science" as entities from a different set group. (how is your knowledge in group theory?) simply put, unless the creator breaks all rules - and then you can not mention it when talking about logic or mathematics - mathematical fields which do not allow "special cases".

Even more simply put for you, you can say one of two things
"the creator exists, he is one, and he created everything. PERIOD! this is my belief!", a fine answer as far as I'm concerned.
or you can use mathematical logic, and created a severe contradiction just as you did, but do not poses the post-high-school "mathematical proficiency" to understand it.

 

I already answered the question and i asked my question which is the same as your question before you do ask and you did not answer it and you will never answer it because you can not and no atheist can

You have failed.

 

oh... yea... u're actually right. bummer.

(p.s. that's keyword stuffing, my friend, DP will be penalized)

 

You just proved my point

 

Dodara, I'd like to contribute, because I hear this a lot, about atheists, and atheism.

The simple answer is that we don't know yet. The way we proceed, is by scientific method.

That we don't know yet, doesn't mean it won't be discovered at some point. You will recall that it was a few spare centuries ago that the Sun spun around the Earth. The truth of it was, until then, "unknown," with plenty of folks imputing deity to it all. And a man was condemned to mortal terror for his soul, as he was a believer, for what his science was telling him.

The difference between a person of faith and a person of science, is, necessarily, faith. A scientist moves from the known to the unknown, to make new knowns.

Where there is an unknown is merely an invite to further inquiry, by the empiricist's credo.

 

Atheists claim always to relay on science in everything and by there science there is no God, but still they can not prove it.

Its like that atheists think that they are the one's who only participate in or rely on science which is false.

Look around you and you will see that scientists are from all nationality and from all religions and everyone knows the contributions of Muslims in the science field and i do not need to mention them because everyone knows.

Many of atheists claim that religions block learning, which is not the case with my own religion (Islam).

I want you to note that and maybe you can add this to your info because its a fact:

Islam (Laws, Practices, etc) is all about one thing: There is no God except one God which is Allah.

But still the first word of the first verse of The Holy Quran in Surah Al-'alaq ( The Clot ) was: Read (Some say Recite is more correctly to translate to) and then its started with a scientific fact that the human was created from a clot and then it asks you again to Read (Recite) and in Arabic language we have many different ways to confirm things or make it obligatory, but repeating a word in Arabic language twice it means that its a must.

1.Recite with the name of your Lord Who created,

2.He made man from the clot of blood,

3.Recite, for your Lord is the Most Generous.

So as you can see it did not started with There is no god except Allah as in many other verses and parts of the Quran, instead it started with Surah Al-'alaq ( The Clot )

Now if you can prove to me there is no God and you can not and no atheists could, then i might get interested in a conversation with atheists.

And don't tell me like the old atheists you can not see god then there is no god, because we can not see everything and our capacity of seeing is limited.

Or i don't hear him so God does not exist, because also hearing capacity is limited.

Also so you know our capacity of thinking is limited as well, that's why you can not answer and no one could answer where did the universe came from that is if we supposed atheists theories are right and the universe came from itself from a small molecular then:
1. What is the smallest molecular ?
2. where did it came from ?

And no one can answer because just like our hearing, sight, etc capacities which are limited, our thinking capacity is limited.

Also do not tell me the universe has been created by itself and no one created it because this is has nothing to do with science and even LOGIC, as by logic a creation need a creator.

Do not tell me there was such a small thing for example (Like the RNA stupid suggestion) and everything was made from it because i know (since im in medicine field) and you know (since you seem a person with knowledge) RNA is not the smallest thing and the RNA has other components and the other components have other and there are components which science did not discover yet and if for a moment we reached to the basic component and lets say component 1 or basic component then i will ask you:

Where did it came from?

So to make it mush more simple:

You will ask where did the creator came from, if lets suppose there is a creator, i will tell you i do not know, no one could know, no one will know, because our capacities of thinking is limited.

I will ask you in the same manner if there is no creator then where did the creation came from, you might tell me there is such a small thing which everything was formed from or from nothing as some atheists say, then i will ask you where did the small thing or nothing came from and there will be no answer.

But i know and you know by logic and practical life a creation need a creator, as the same examples i provided in one of my previous posts:
Car = Need a manufacture
New born = Need a Female + a Male
Universe (Which is the most complicated and perfect creation) = Need a Creator

A computer is of one the best invention in my opinion and lets call it for a second a creation, can the computer understand us without us making it and giving it the needed commands ?

The answer is simple: No, because we can control it and it can not because its capacities is more limited than us, we start it and we shut it down.

In the same manner you can not compare your self to the creator because you are a creation and our capacities are limited to him and we can not understand him, except what he wanted us to understand by the capacities he gave us.

So i can not answer your question and you can not answer my question but we know a creation need a creator so i will stick to logic that a creation need a creator and believe in God.

Famous atheists last words before dying: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fSFGrhsBpM&feature=channel_page

 

As carl sagan said, why take the extra step? To explain the origins of the universe you posit a god, then claim you don't know where it came from. So why not conclude one step earlier when pondering the origin of the universe that you don't know? Why invent some ludicrous magic man in the sky to explain an unknown if your final conclusion is always ultimately going to be "i don't know"?

See, the thing with the religious is they don't have reasons for believing, they simply look for excuses. So unless a natural explanation of the origin of the universe will dismantle your faith, it cant be held as the reason for having it. Like the religious normally do when science finds a natural explanation to something they have attributed to god they either start denying the obvious, to great comical effect like they with evolution, or they simply ignore it and start claiming god done something else.

A theist on this forum once went from saying god made all the animals, atoms and planets to "well god made maths then" when the natural processes where definitively explained to him. What the religious do is perpetually relegate their god and move him back as things are explained into the currently unknown, and when the unknown becomes known, they relegate him further. And as he is currently relegated to explaining the origins of the universe there isn't much further back he can go, Which is why the religious are now in the unfortunate position of denying the existence of scientific explanations that even children grasp with ease.

It's a bad time to be religious. I almost feel a little sorry for them. Only a little and only almost, though. I mean, don't they wish their little books had a slightly better explanation. With all the evidence we have. Don't they wish their books said something a bit more plausible than "god made man from some dust and woman from a rib.... oh, and there was a snake that can talk". How they can state this as true without going bright red is astonishing. it's just sad that grown ups feel obliged to say such utter shit and expect to be taken seriously.

 

I can not answer where did the creator came from and you can not answer where the creation came from, so we are equal, but:

By logic: creation need a creator.

So im in a better position than your position.

Not natural explanations but theories of atheists which are not approved or confirmed and also many other scientists disagree with these theories because most of them are not based or supported.

Exactly that's the reason why i opened this topic from the first place which speaks about science part in the Quran and i can provide more and more and i will in this topic

 

No you are in an illogical position. You attempt to explain an unknown by positing an unknown as it's explanation. That makes no sense at all and makes an unrequired step.

Like what? Specifically?

 

I see you have stepped toward philosophy, good, i will step toward logic:

Can a car be made without a manufacture ?
NO

Can a new born be with out at least one male and female ?
NO

So its not explaining the unknown by the unknown, instead its explaining the unknown by other well known facts

Like the evolution theory

 

that makes no sense. Just because a car needs to be manufactured doesn't mean everything does. You are just making shit up now. It makes as little sense as saying "ice crystals form via a natural process, so that means cars do to"

Evolution is a fact, the evolutionary theory explains the fact. Sorry if you are unable or unwilling to accept it, but reality gives not a shit about what you think or what you accept.