You are an absolute joke mate..this level of clownery and self-induced delusion is only to be found in atheist darwinian apologists
"You are Putting no effort"
Why do i require effort to rebuke a clown who doesn't even get what Homology is or the fact that his clown ass assumes just coz there is no mention of homology NO HOMOLOGY IS USED this is logical fallacy clowns use
homology is not an analogy or a conclusion its a fundamental assumption that s required for you to prove common ancestry without it COMMON ANCESTRY CANNOT BE PROVEN and you have tonroll that assumption through a through a mechanism called Natrual selection which your old racist buddy Darwin did which has AND WHOLE OTHER SET OF ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING IT LIKE GRADUALISM
You don't even know what the problme of theory ladedness is that leads to homology
You can laugh and attempt to trivialise what i say but you just disagree for the sake of disagreeing while gas lighting yourself into believe hypothesis are actually the case and are even remotely likely
Its ironic and contradictory where you accept the probability of something is mere probability yet calim factuality even when the opposition argues that its based on probabilistic framework and you YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS HIDING BEHIND ASSUMPTIONS LIKE A WEASEL
Before we move on with your pathetic knowlege backed by NO ONE literally just YOURSELF ASSUMING ANY PROBABILITY HAS ROBUST AND FACTUAL FRAMWORK WHICH YOU HAVE TO PROVE but you don't address it and just attack and demean whatever you see that goes against your mainstream delusion
Let me address this disaster too:
SO QURAN GOT EMBRYOLOGY WRONG?
This is why you should not just feed off of the shit on Internet without proper research i mean you even laughed at Philosophy of Biology which stands at the crux of any scientific evolutionary thought which determines the logic on data u see , so shows more of your arrogance like the clown you are parading that you have a dense yet intellectually vacuous head.
I'll premise this refutation on a basic principle science is based upon which is revision and corrections
Now lets address the verse you are mistranslating
You claim that the verse
:
"ثُمَّ خَلَقْنَا ٱلنُّطْفَةَ عَلَقَةًۭ فَخَلَقْنَا ٱلْعَلَقَةَ مُضْغَةًۭ فَخَلَقْنَا ٱلْمُضْغَةَ عِظَـٰمًۭا فَكَسَوْنَا ٱلْعِظَـٰمَ لَحْمًۭا ثُمَّ أَنشَأْنَـٰهُ خَلْقًا ءَاخَرَ ۚ فَتَبَارَكَ ٱللَّهُ أَحْسَنُ ٱلْخَـٰلِقِينَ ١٤
Quran 23:14
"
Is wrong in claiming that Bones are formed before flesh as emboldened
Limb development which quran Refers to,(Bone covered or clothed with flesh where you think quran mistakes the chronology ) happens around 6th-and 7th week of embryonic development where a type of cells called mesenchyme form cartilage model for bone ossification but before the cartilage ossifies (turns into solid bone) another set of cells called Myoblasts aggregate into muscle massess or muscle fiber around the cartilage which form the flexes and extenders of the joints
Ie: the development of skeletal muscles
"But OH BLEAK ASH THE MUSCLES FORM BEFORE THE CARTILAGE OSSIFY (TURNING INTO BONES) SO QURAN MUST BE WRONG ABOUT BONES COMING FIRST THE FLESH WAKING RIGHT?"
WRONG!
WITH THE BIG " W"
Here is where the linguistics come in and prove arabic's ever prominent lexical and linguistically general versatility as a language that god him self sent down his book in this language and literally adulates this language
Lets begin your funeral
arabic is a vast language with some of the most synonyms for words you could find in a language
The the word cartilage in arabic is " غضروف"
"oh but bleak this doesn't correspond with the word bones in arabic which is 'ٱلْعِظَـٰمَ' "
Dw lets look at what some of the most largest and detailed dictionaries of arabic say about cartilage or "غضروف"
The name of the dictionary is Lisān al-ʿArab
the description says this about the dictionary
Lisān al-ʿArab is one of the largest and most detailed dictionaries of the Arabic language, written by the philologist, historian and Islamic scholar Ibn Manẓūr (died 1311 CE / 711 AH). In print the dictionary is 15 or 18 volumes, depending on the edition. Ibn Manẓūr based its contents strictly on five of the most trusted references of the Arabic language: Tahdhīb al-Lugha of al-Azharī (d. 980 CE / 370 H), al-Muḥkam wa al-Muḥīṭ al-Aʿẓam of Ibn Sīda (d. 1066 CE / 458 H), Tāj al-Lugha of al-Jawharī (died about 1003 CE / 393 H), Ibn Baray's commentary on the Tāj (d. 1178 CE / 582 AH), and al-Nihāya fī Gharīb al-Ḥadīth wa al-Athar by Ibn al-Athīr (d. 1233 CE / 630 H).
here is how it defines the word غضروف
"الــغُضْرُوف: "كلُّ عَظم رَخْص ليّن في أَيّ موضع كان
translation
cartilage : " every soft, loose bone in any position " note the emboldened words
reference?
http://arabiclexicon.hawramani.com/search/غضروف?cat=3
Uhoh unfortunately for you cartilage is a type of soft bone in lexical arabic
and that means quran is accurate with its description to embryology that first the cartilage (soft bone) is formed first and then the muscle is formed around it or flesh
"OH BUT YOU JUST GAVE ONE REFERENCEE WHAT ABOUT OTHER LEXICAL DICTIONARIES "
Dw you are an easy baby to console in that regards too:
الــغضروف) كل عظم لين رخص فِي أَي مَوضِع كَانَ
The cartilage ) is every soft bone that gives relief in any position
from
Academy of the Arabic Language in Cairo, al-Muʿjam al-Wasīṭ
reference:http://arabiclexicon.hawramani.com/search/غضروف?cat=37
all in all your vapid lousy attempts at proving anything we have discussed so far have failed due to your ignorance,arrgogance,and stupidity
i never said evolution is false or that we didn't have ancestors we evolved from thats the evolution that is clear and crystal
but to assume that Huamn-APe is factual and scientist actually consider it a blatant end all be all fact and that there are no assumptions is something you have to provide evidence for that burden of such delusional Darwinist ahtiest jargon is not for me to prove
there are literally athiests evolutionary bilologist out that that claim that you cannot calculate the APE v HUMAN comparison nd differences and come up with a metric you have to selectively look for similarities and assume its due to common descent .and even as far as
you have to prove evidence that there are biologist that consider Ape human ancestry to be true in its most definitive form..
such questions show your ignorance.. all you do is oppose with it ...not soo constructive
"You are Putting no effort"
Why do i require effort to rebuke a clown who doesn't even get what Homology is or the fact that his clown ass assumes just coz there is no mention of homology NO HOMOLOGY IS USED this is logical fallacy clowns use
homology is not an analogy or a conclusion its a fundamental assumption that s required for you to prove common ancestry without it COMMON ANCESTRY CANNOT BE PROVEN and you have tonroll that assumption through a through a mechanism called Natrual selection which your old racist buddy Darwin did which has AND WHOLE OTHER SET OF ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING IT LIKE GRADUALISM
You don't even know what the problme of theory ladedness is that leads to homology
You can laugh and attempt to trivialise what i say but you just disagree for the sake of disagreeing while gas lighting yourself into believe hypothesis are actually the case and are even remotely likely
Its ironic and contradictory where you accept the probability of something is mere probability yet calim factuality even when the opposition argues that its based on probabilistic framework and you YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS HIDING BEHIND ASSUMPTIONS LIKE A WEASEL
Before we move on with your pathetic knowlege backed by NO ONE literally just YOURSELF ASSUMING ANY PROBABILITY HAS ROBUST AND FACTUAL FRAMWORK WHICH YOU HAVE TO PROVE but you don't address it and just attack and demean whatever you see that goes against your mainstream delusion
Let me address this disaster too:
SO QURAN GOT EMBRYOLOGY WRONG?
This is why you should not just feed off of the shit on Internet without proper research i mean you even laughed at Philosophy of Biology which stands at the crux of any scientific evolutionary thought which determines the logic on data u see , so shows more of your arrogance like the clown you are parading that you have a dense yet intellectually vacuous head.
I'll premise this refutation on a basic principle science is based upon which is revision and corrections
Now lets address the verse you are mistranslating
You claim that the verse
:
"ثُمَّ خَلَقْنَا ٱلنُّطْفَةَ عَلَقَةًۭ فَخَلَقْنَا ٱلْعَلَقَةَ مُضْغَةًۭ فَخَلَقْنَا ٱلْمُضْغَةَ عِظَـٰمًۭا فَكَسَوْنَا ٱلْعِظَـٰمَ لَحْمًۭا ثُمَّ أَنشَأْنَـٰهُ خَلْقًا ءَاخَرَ ۚ فَتَبَارَكَ ٱللَّهُ أَحْسَنُ ٱلْخَـٰلِقِينَ ١٤
Quran 23:14
"
Is wrong in claiming that Bones are formed before flesh as emboldened
Limb development which quran Refers to,(Bone covered or clothed with flesh where you think quran mistakes the chronology ) happens around 6th-and 7th week of embryonic development where a type of cells called mesenchyme form cartilage model for bone ossification but before the cartilage ossifies (turns into solid bone) another set of cells called Myoblasts aggregate into muscle massess or muscle fiber around the cartilage which form the flexes and extenders of the joints
Ie: the development of skeletal muscles
"But OH BLEAK ASH THE MUSCLES FORM BEFORE THE CARTILAGE OSSIFY (TURNING INTO BONES) SO QURAN MUST BE WRONG ABOUT BONES COMING FIRST THE FLESH WAKING RIGHT?"
WRONG!
WITH THE BIG " W"
Here is where the linguistics come in and prove arabic's ever prominent lexical and linguistically general versatility as a language that god him self sent down his book in this language and literally adulates this language
Lets begin your funeral
arabic is a vast language with some of the most synonyms for words you could find in a language
The the word cartilage in arabic is " غضروف"
"oh but bleak this doesn't correspond with the word bones in arabic which is 'ٱلْعِظَـٰمَ' "
Dw lets look at what some of the most largest and detailed dictionaries of arabic say about cartilage or "غضروف"
The name of the dictionary is Lisān al-ʿArab
the description says this about the dictionary
Lisān al-ʿArab is one of the largest and most detailed dictionaries of the Arabic language, written by the philologist, historian and Islamic scholar Ibn Manẓūr (died 1311 CE / 711 AH). In print the dictionary is 15 or 18 volumes, depending on the edition. Ibn Manẓūr based its contents strictly on five of the most trusted references of the Arabic language: Tahdhīb al-Lugha of al-Azharī (d. 980 CE / 370 H), al-Muḥkam wa al-Muḥīṭ al-Aʿẓam of Ibn Sīda (d. 1066 CE / 458 H), Tāj al-Lugha of al-Jawharī (died about 1003 CE / 393 H), Ibn Baray's commentary on the Tāj (d. 1178 CE / 582 AH), and al-Nihāya fī Gharīb al-Ḥadīth wa al-Athar by Ibn al-Athīr (d. 1233 CE / 630 H).
here is how it defines the word غضروف
"الــغُضْرُوف: "كلُّ عَظم رَخْص ليّن في أَيّ موضع كان
translation
cartilage : " every soft, loose bone in any position " note the emboldened words
reference?
http://arabiclexicon.hawramani.com/search/غضروف?cat=3
Uhoh unfortunately for you cartilage is a type of soft bone in lexical arabic
and that means quran is accurate with its description to embryology that first the cartilage (soft bone) is formed first and then the muscle is formed around it or flesh
"OH BUT YOU JUST GAVE ONE REFERENCEE WHAT ABOUT OTHER LEXICAL DICTIONARIES "
Dw you are an easy baby to console in that regards too:
الــغضروف) كل عظم لين رخص فِي أَي مَوضِع كَانَ
The cartilage ) is every soft bone that gives relief in any position
from
Academy of the Arabic Language in Cairo, al-Muʿjam al-Wasīṭ
reference:http://arabiclexicon.hawramani.com/search/غضروف?cat=37
all in all your vapid lousy attempts at proving anything we have discussed so far have failed due to your ignorance,arrgogance,and stupidity
i never said evolution is false or that we didn't have ancestors we evolved from thats the evolution that is clear and crystal
but to assume that Huamn-APe is factual and scientist actually consider it a blatant end all be all fact and that there are no assumptions is something you have to provide evidence for that burden of such delusional Darwinist ahtiest jargon is not for me to prove
there are literally athiests evolutionary bilologist out that that claim that you cannot calculate the APE v HUMAN comparison nd differences and come up with a metric you have to selectively look for similarities and assume its due to common descent .and even as far as
you have to prove evidence that there are biologist that consider Ape human ancestry to be true in its most definitive form..
such questions show your ignorance.. all you do is oppose with it ...not soo constructive
Dont care avout your gish gallop copy pasta here, the quran gets plenty things wrong if you dont perform mental gymnastics to reinterpret shit. And scientific errors are not the only issue of the quran either
Post automatically merged:
And well what a train wreck of a post that is. Similarities =/= homologies. Already mentioned that anyway. You might want to learn a little about these topics from other peeps than apologists lmao
Post automatically merged:
hypothesis are actually the case and are even remotely likely
Post automatically merged:
Literal hogwash
Last edited:
