REF: virgin birth, what about Cloning ?
-
Peace Arnold Yasin, you said ?Newton wasn't wrong, his findings couldn't explain everything, what he discovered was mostly right.?
Newton equated space to a void. That?s wrong (he could not explain space).
I said 'mostly' yes did I not? His laws on energy movement for large bodies of mass are still correct. The things that they were uncertain of, like Newton was uncertain of what is space, were eloborated by later generations. Facts are the things that have been constantly been observed as being unchanging laws. That we misunderstand those ideas and Laws is normal as indeed our knowledge is limited to our current observations. The main point is that Tanveer tried to dismiss science in total as constant facts but as something that cannot be trusted. This is an overexggerated statement just to make his interpretation less unreasonable.
-
Remember, you haven't yet been able to show a single logical interpretation of that "wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide interpretation-level" story of Marium receiving the good news from the malaika.
Stop playing the fool. Please, go read all of our discussions again. We go around in circles. If you disagree, fine.
We were hardly going around in circles. Maybe you should go and read it again. You provided an insanely illogical explanation of 'Marium's reaction to the good news'. When I replied to it and showed how illogical your explanation is, you ignored it and said "I believe we must agree to disagree Fahad."
It is harder, and impossible, for you to provide a logical explanation(other than virginbirth) of Marium's reaction. It is easier to 'agree to disagree'.
Going around circles, huh?!
But don't try to act as if I haven't answered anything,
I am not acting. You really haven't. If it has such a wiiiiiiiiiide range of interpretations, at least show us a few interpretations from it. A few that make sense.
...this is a weak tactic.
No . Weak tactic is this
You try to twist things as if you're defending the Truth, while your interpretation has many holes in them as I and others have shown. You don't defend the Truth, you defend your interpretation.
We try to twist things?! No, we are presenting it as it is. You try to twist it, and rationalize it to make it look more "scientific". You defend your interpretations and cover the holes in them with your Bibles and your science.
Just show another interpretation out of that wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii(yawwwn)iiiiiiiiiiiide range of interpretations, so everyone can see who is working so hard to twist the truth and to defend his interpretations.
Time will tell if it is the Truth or not.
Only the rejectors have to wait and see (4153). The believers already know that it is the truth. (226)
-
Only the rejectors have to wait and see (4153). The believers already know that it is the truth. (226)
Exactly
-
Yes, and everyone CAN'T understand Al-Quran.(1746)
OK, then it is useless. That's just common sense, isn't it?
Al-Quran is indeed impossible to understand for those who don't believe in the hereafter(1746). And you don't believe in the hereafter because it would be blind belief(according to you), right? So it is useless for you. And from now on, you will regard Al-Quran as horse s***, right? Or you already do?
wait...is it impossible to understand for everyone? or just people like me?
so to understand the quran, we need to first believe that it is from god and that if we don't believe it we will spend eternity in hell?Yes, there really is no way around it now. Everyone cannot understand Al-Quran(1746). So, in a forum that has been created for the study and understanding of Al-Quran, you will regard it as useless horse s***. Right?
why the heck do we even have a forum for understanding the quran if we cannot understand it!!?
why do you even read the quran if you cannot understand it?
See, I read books in english because that is a language I understand. I do not read books in latin because I do not understand latin. Even if I could read it, I would not understand what it is saying, so it would be useless. -
Peace Arnold,
The first DNA of humans was also a mix of male and female, as it evolved out of lesser forms.
You are again doing the same thing as before and stating your own personal opinion/conjecture/theory as a scientific fact, but that is hardly surprising and has become very predictable and seriously damages your credibility...... so keep these kind of statements coming
The "missing link" has never been discovered so what you are saying is not a fact but merely a conjecture. What about the first DNA ever ? Did it also originate from a male and a female ? or from a "sperm" as you conjecture per your fallacious and scientifically incorrect twisted interpretation of "nutfatin" in 5346 ?
As for 'kullu', indeed it is an important point I forgot.
Thank you for admitting at least one of your errors. It takes courage to admit one's mistake and that improves your credibility somewhat. At least we are making some progress !!
As for what we know about Laws. Newton wasn't wrong, his findings couldn't explain everything, what he discovered was mostly right. Same holds for Einstein. The Laws hasn't changed, we only know more and more backgrounds.
Saying Newton wasn't wrong and then saying he was mostly right are contradictory statements. Even if he was wrong in one thing he was wrong about that thing. You should have said he wasn't completely wrong rather than saying he wasn't wrong.
No one can completely understand some of God's laws because there is always a changing and progressive human understanding of those laws. Maybe the "miracles" occurred through an as yet unknown or undiscovered law or we haven't understood the relevant laws completely yet. To dismiss them completely/absolutely as impossible would show the same kind of ignorance as shown by someone 500 years ago dismissing all the technology and phenomenon discovered in the last 100 years just because that person couldn't understand the relevant laws at that time.
You defend the virgin-birth only based on an interpretation of a couple verses that have a wide wide interpretation-level. To believe in these interpretations you have to ignore a lot of logic and reason and hold on to many loose straws and just keep repeating 'Allah can do everything'. Yes He can.
You are the one who ignores logic and reason when you make a conjectural twisted interpretation of what Mary said in reaction to the good news, which completely ignores the grammar of the language and the context and based on other fallacious and illogical understandings of other pertinent verses, one of which you just admitted as above, and on historical hearsay and conjectures of the cultural rules of the sanctuary in those days.
You are defending a miracle-belief that in my eyes goes against the Quran's message that tells us no one will believe through miracles.
Again you are inventing a lie against God. Where does God say that NO ONE will believe through miracles ? A while back in one of your initial posts on this thread (http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13174.msg109550#msg109550) you tried to justify your personal theories/opinions and your personal desires by mistranslating a verse
6111 Even if We caused the angels to descend to them, and the dead to speak to them, and We lined up all the miracles before them, they would not believe. People can be guided only according to Allah?s Laws, but most of them choose the way of ignorance.
Where does it say in the original arabic of the verse what you mistranslated in the underlined portion ?
Arnold, fear God. You have gone to the extreme of mistranslating God's verses for your own personal desires. This is not an interpretation but a DELIBERATE MISTRANSLATION/WRONG TRANSLATION. You should translate the verse accurately and then give your own conjectural interpretation separately but NOT IN THE VERSE ITSELF.
Following is the literal translation of 6111
6111 And if that We descended to them the angels, and the deads talked (to) them , and We gathered on them every thing in front, they were not to believe, except that God wants/wills, and but most of them are being ignorant.
"Except that God wants/wills" shows that some of them MIGHT BELIEVE.
To start with, this verse talks about those who set up partners and not all mankind. To say that this verse shows that NO ONE will believe in miracles is not an interpretation but inventing a lie against God.
Peace
-
PARTHENOGENESIS IS NOT "VIRGIN BIRTH"
From what I understand, "Pathenogenesis" is more like a replication that is suited for lower forms of life... just the way cells divide.
Among other traits reptiles have (including regrowth of limbs and extremely fast regeneration of tissue - not observed in mammals) these creatures, though a lot more complex than insects, do not have higher brain functions.
For lizards such as Komodo dragons, the brain lobes are mostly limited to the limbic system
- They control very calculated and extremely limited emotional characteristics, which can be replicated indefinitely without eventually going sterile.
- And since they are very well-adapted for their environment, they may not evolve (consider that they, like other reptiles, have been around in these forms longer than mammals even existed.) Hence, their replication is an indication that they may have reached a termal/stagnated level of their evolution unless a mutation occurs.
For parthenogenesis of humans, it is proposed that this cannot be induced naturally Why?
-
If it did, the DNA will become stagnated.
-
Also, if parthenogenesis occurs in mammals, then it is unlikely to stop in one generation It will keep on occuring since it is a REPLICATION (an exact copy of the DNA.) The same DNA will keep on replicating its copy/imprint.
-
All demi-humans who shall be born out of parthenogenesis will be FEMALE. Please study genetics before you claim scientific explanations for "virgin birth" in humans...
This is a catch 22 for human pathenogens... Unless you want to claim that Jesus was a woman, please stop asserting parthenogenesis as a means of his birth!
-
wait...so Jesus is a dude??!!?!?!
and maxq, even if that was possible, what Tanveer is claiming cannot have occured without some form of supernatural. Parthenogenesis was just another attempt to make virgin birth look scientific (when it clearly isn't).So what it all comes down to is whether you believe in supernatural or not. I don't, so it is impossible for me to accept virgin birth. Tanveer and others do, so it works for them. What I don't like is trying to explain something supernatural scientifically. I've been seeing this with jinn (plasma beings and what not) and now the same thing's going on with virgin birth.
-
All I can quote is
9614 Does he not know that Allah sees to it that His Laws are enforced without exception?
3543 Their arrogance in the land and their evil schemes! Yet an evil scheme engulfs its designers. Are they waiting for anything but the way the ancients were dealt with? Yes! No change you will ever find in the Laws of Allah, and no deviation you will ever find in the Laws of Allah.
-
but max, according to "them," the word "Laws" in that verse doesn't mean "laws of the universe" it means other laws that God might want to create. whatever they may be. But they don't actually believe that, which explains the creation of this thread, which is all about proving that virgin birth doesn't break any laws. Well, it does break a lot of laws. And the quran says that god's laws cannot be broken. Which means that either the quran has a contradiccion, or their interpretation of baby Jesus' story is wrong.
I did read your post. What about it?
ok ok, I got it. So it is absolutely not possible. at all. got it.
-
No deviation... no change... this not only applies to the law itself, but is a promise from God that he will not intervene "unnaturally" He has his means/laws/mechanism by which he governs the universe. Not by arbitrary "thunderbolts".
20116 Recall when We said to the angels, ?Bow before Adam, they bowed except Iblis; he refused.? (Divine Laws in the Universe have been made of service to man but his selfish desire rebels against himself).
but max, according to "them," the word "Laws" in that verse doesn't mean "laws of the universe" it means other laws that God might want to create. whatever they may be. But they don't actually believe that, which explains the creation of this thread, which is all about proving that virgin birth doesn't break any laws. Well, it does break a lot of laws. And the quran says that god's laws cannot be broken. Which means that either the quran has a contradiccion, or their interpretation of baby Jesus' story is wrong.
I did read your post. What about it?
ok ok, I got it. So it is absolutely not possible. at all. got it.
-
Peace maxq, all,
Nice posts!
Unless you want to claim that Jesus was a woman, please stop asserting parthenogenesis as a means of his birth!
That's the problem(unanswered)...the means of his birth. It would be much simpler, and really end the debate, if people would just admit that what they believe is that God created Isa by sheer will, having nothing to do with science. If one wants to believe that God said "be" and Marium became instantly pregnant, there's really not much to argue. But to bring cloning/genetics into the picture while trying to maintain this (dare I say) supernatural event does nothing to draw the argument to a close. How did it happen? Perhaps Marium was flown to the skylab where her DNA was extracted and the cloning procedure began. Or maybe everyone in her lineage was carrying the dormant Isa-clone-DNA that coincidentally came to life when her womb was primed and ready. Or some unknown secret of nature that we'll come to understand in 1000 years. All explanation is conjecture at this point and that's why it's being left alone, so as not to weaken the stance of those calling others out on conjecture.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace all,
9614 Does he not know that Allah sees to it that His Laws are enforced without exception?
This is a mistranslation of this verse. The actual arabic does not say this. The literal translation of this verse is as follows
9614 Does he not know with that God sees/understands?
Maxq, stop inventing lies against God and have some fear of God.
No deviation... no change... this not only applies to the law itself, but is a promise from God that he will not intervene "unnaturally" He has his means/laws/mechanism by which he governs the universe. Not by arbitrary "thunderbolts".
The verse 3543 does not refer to ALL natural laws but only to the never changing law of God giving respite to evil for sometimes and then destroying it, which is clear from the verse and the context. Also, the word "kullu" is nowhere to be found in this verse so how did God's sunnat/way become ALL ways ? Good try maxq but this conjectural misinterpretation won't fly
By the way, maxq's statements about parthenogenesis, cloning and genetics show that he is also not educated about this subject, and he should get his facts straight before making inaccurate statements and then misleading others. It also shows that he has not read all my posts in which I have given examples of various possibilities ad nauseum and also explained about XY females.
I gave the exampe of cloning and parthenogenesis to disprove Arnold's assertions that virgin birth in general is impossible (due to his misinterpretation of 4913), and that pairs result only from sperms (due to his misinterpretation of "nutfatin" in 5345-46) and not to show that it exactly explains Jesus's birth (Tay, please note, cuz you have failed to note this in my past posts). That, however, is still possible by the cloning of an XY male out of an XY female, for example, Swyer's syndrome, by first repairing the SRY mutation in a certain somatic cell and then cloning it. That is not exactly how Jesus was created, but it just shows that it is humanly possible. It is impossible for humans to replicate the superior "be" technology of God
Parthenogenesis is virgin birth because offsprings are produced from a single parent without fertilization from a sperm. Parthenogenesis itself is derived from greek words meaning virgin birth. There are some species which are capable of BOTH sexual reproduction and parthenogenesis (e.g. honey bees, ants, komodo dragons)
Parthenogenesis is not an EXACT replication of DNA (male drones arising from unfertilized eggs of honey bees, and also other examples of off springs being different from the parent). Even cloning is not EXACT replication of DNA because of mitochondrial origin of some DNA from the recipient cell's mitochondria
"Dolly or any other animal created using nuclear transfer technology is not truly an identical clone of the donor animal. Only the clone's chromosomal or nuclear DNA is the same as the donor. Some of the clone's genetic materials come from the mitochondria in the cytoplasm of the enucleated egg. Mitochondria, which are organelles that serve as power sources to the cell, contain their own short segments of DNA. Acquired mutations in mitochondrial DNA are believed to play an important role in the aging process."
Above from
http//www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml
Also see
http//www.nature.com/ng/journal/v23/n1/full/ng0999_90.html
Also Parthenogenesis does not always result in females (honey bees, komodo dragons etc.)
Reference
http//maarec.cas.psu.edu/bkCD/HBBiology/breeding_genetics.htm
Peace
-
Peace maxq, you said ?No deviation... no change... this not only applies to the law itself, but is a promise from God that he will not intervene "unnaturally" He has his means/laws/mechanism by which he governs the universe. Not by arbitrary "thunderbolts".?
You need to tell us what the ?means/laws/mechanism? are before discussing the no deviation/no change to it. Have you a unified model that works in this situation? How did you come to this model and who validated the model? Have you observed all the laws/phenomenon of nature? Does your model lead to the truth about reality?
In order to have meaningful debate one must established these facts first. Please provide these facts and then we will either disprove your model or accept it. Thank you.
-
You need to tell us what the means/laws/mechanism are before discussing the no deviation/no change to it. Have you a unified model that works in this situation? How did you come to this model and who validated the model? Have you observed all the laws/phenomenon of nature? Does your model lead to the truth about reality?
It's a focused way of looking at it and might spawn more food for thought.