Embryology in the Quran? Surah 23:14, NOT scientific Embryologist PZ Myers
-
Peace all
MUST WATCH
PZ MYERS confession BONES FORM FIRST
https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4trHH6AuZ0
http//datab.us/k8ZScVDpWS4#Professor Keith Moore, Professor PZ Myers and Embryology in The Qur'an
-
Message for those who are questioning Quranic embryology..I mean the Nonmushrik guy
Scream and cry because journal article called Human Embryology and the Holy Quran An Overview exists even within US National Center for Biotechnology Information's library
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068791/ps Your PZ Myers guy who seems to be extremist in his field is merely defending his own position with that partial blog article.
A little about him https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZ_Myers
-
Wow! Nonmushrik is really wiping the floor with you guys! He is so cool! He makes Islam look like a joke! Nonmushrik is so amazing! He knows so much, so many great points to blow Islam to smithereens! Good work Nonmushrik! I hope this all leads to your immortality!
-
Peace all
MUST WATCH
PZ MYERS confession BONES FORM FIRST
https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4trHH6AuZ0
http//datab.us/k8ZScVDpWS4#Professor Keith Moore, Professor PZ Myers and Embryology in The Qur'an
Salam/Peace dear brother. This link is sadly not working. Could you give us a working link?
-
Message for those who are questioning Quranic embryology..I mean the Nonmushrik guy
Scream and cry because journal article called Human Embryology and the Holy Quran An Overview exists even within US National Center for Biotechnology Information's library
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068791/ps Your PZ Myers guy who seems to be extremist in his field is merely defending his own position with that partial blog article.
A little about him https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZ_Myers
The article is published by "International Journal of Health Sciences" a Saudi sunni propaganda site masquerading as science.
https//ijhs.org.sa/index.php/journal
PZ myers is not an extremist. He's spoken out against the new atheist movement
He only attacks religion when it attempts to shut down real science.Here he's having a go at Sam Harris
https//freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/11/26/i-get-email-sam-harris-edition/#ixzz3sd3tO4z5Anyway, there are no scientific theories in the Quran. This idea was first floated by Haroon Yahya who's in jail and then later the Dawah people who have since retracted their position.
-
The article is published by "International Journal of Health Sciences" a Saudi sunni propaganda site masquerading as science.
https//ijhs.org.sa/index.php/journal
PZ myers is not an extremist. He's spoken out against the new atheist movement
He only attacks religion when it attempts to shut down real science.Here he's having a go at Sam Harris
https//freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/11/26/i-get-email-sam-harris-edition/#ixzz3sd3tO4z5Anyway, there are no scientific theories in the Quran. This idea was first floated by Haroon Yahya who's in jail and then later the Dawah people who have since retracted their position.
Bold 1 Can modern science be trusted? This video gives us a perspective of "modern science" https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE
Bold 2 There is a wordpress about PZ Myers defending a rapist. https//orwelliangarbage.wordpress.com/2015/05/27/pz-myers-blasts-josh-duggar-but-protects-the-child-rapist-on-his-blog/
Bold 3 Wait, since when this is about scientific theories? And Harun is in jail? Wasn't he released?
-
Anyway, there are no scientific theories in the Quran. This idea was first floated by Haroon Yahya who's in jail and then later the Dawah people who have since retracted their position.
Quran is a book for guidance on how to live this life and not a book of science. Majority of people do not follow the guidance but waste their time in useless things.
-
Quran is a book for guidance on how to live this life and not a book of science. Majority of people do not follow the guidance but waste their time in useless things.
That's materialism for you brother.
-
Bold 1 Can modern science be trusted? This video gives us a perspective of "modern science" https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE
You are right it can't. The computer you use is not based on science it's witchcraft. It's an illusion from Shaytan. Also if you use any mechanical transport like car, planes etc that's all fake too.
And stop using all medicine or going to doctors instead ask Dr Sheldrake to heal you telepathically.
Vaccines are evil too. Lets bring back small pox, polio and measles.
Bold 2 There is a wordpress about PZ Myers defending a rapist. https//orwelliangarbage.wordpress.com/2015/05/27/pz-myers-blasts-josh-duggar-but-protects-the-child-rapist-on-his-blog/
ok, so if I created a blogpost about you defending a rapist would that make it true.
Isn't it un-quranic to libel someone without evidence.
Bold 3 Wait, since when this is about scientific theories? And Harun is in jail? Wasn't he released?
don't think so.
-
peace all,
we also discussed it here..https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609951.0
-
You are right it can't. The computer you use is not based on science it's witchcraft. It's an illusion from Shaytan. Also if you use any mechanical transport like car, planes etc that's all fake too.
And stop using all medicine or going to doctors instead ask Dr Sheldrake to heal you telepathically.
Vaccines are evil too. Lets bring back small pox, polio and measles.
ok, so if I created a blogpost about you defending a rapist would that make it true.
Isn't it un-quranic to libel someone without evidence.
don't think so.
Bold 1 Okay, there is no need for you being sarcastic since you didn't like it when i questioned modern science.
Bold 2 But vaccines of chemical usages do cause problems http//dangersofvaccines.com/ https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=zncuOv9VBxw
Bold 3 You did read that article? Didn't you?
Bold 4 You don't think so? OKay but his twitter was active since last month so i am certain that he is not in jail right now.
-
Bold 1 Okay, there is no need for you being sarcastic since you didn't like it when i questioned modern science.
When did I not like it. The very foundation of science is to question it. If you prove a well established theory wrong you'll get the Nobel prize.
Let's test you critical thinking skills. The graph below shows that deaths from measles were in decline well before the vaccine was introduced. Therefore we can conclude that the measles vaccine wasn't needed.
http//2.bp.blogspot.com/-RXRGd-_ZFy4/U6IWzEJOe2I/AAAAAAAABCU/eN6Cfc1i-a4/s1600/Measles+Mortality+1900-1984+-+NonLog+Scale.jpg
Why is my conclusion wrong?
-
When did I not like it. The very foundation of science is to question it. If you prove a well established theory wrong you'll get the Nobel prize.
Let's test you critical thinking skills. The graph below shows that deaths from measles were in decline well before the vaccine was introduced. Therefore we can conclude that the measles vaccine wasn't needed.
http//2.bp.blogspot.com/-RXRGd-_ZFy4/U6IWzEJOe2I/AAAAAAAABCU/eN6Cfc1i-a4/s1600/Measles+Mortality+1900-1984+-+NonLog+Scale.jpg
Why is my conclusion wrong?
Nobel Prize? Who cares about it. Most important about it is saving innocent lives from bad unnatural stuff.
Plus about this measles vaccine, i found this
From
https//vaccinationdilemma.com/parents-want-the-truth/
Parents want the truth
Have you been led to believe that vaccination was the magic bullet that saved us from the scourges of the past?
This is the most convincing argument made by those who market vaccines to us. Chances are it has influenced your decision at a fundamental, and perhaps even subconscious, level. It certainly did mine.
Many thousands of children in industrialised countries died from measles during the 1800s and early 1900s. The death rate steadily declined from the late 1800s. The following graph shows the decline in Australia from 1870 to 1970. The arrow indicates the point at which measles vaccine was introduced.
http//vaccinationdilemma.com/graphs/Chapter1/Fig1_measles.gif
One thing is clear the vaccine had little if anything to do with the demise of measles as a killer. Why? Because it wasn?t around.
All other infectious diseases of the time, diphtheria, whooping cough, scarlet fever, typhoid fever, etc went through a similar decline during the same period. Some of these diseases had vaccines introduced for them. Others didn?t. Their death rates all declined just the same, over the same period.
https//vaccinationdilemma.com/historical-death-rates-diseases-vaccination.html/
The simple fact is vaccination had little, if anything, to do with the overall decline in deaths from infectious diseases.
In their effort to increase vaccination our trusted health advisors have misinformed us at a fundamental level ? the truth would have done.
Have you been led to believe that being vaccinated means you are protected from getting the disease?
When disease outbreaks occur we tend to think unvaccinated children are the ones who get sick. In my Human Rights hearing a professor from the Royal Childrens Hospital stood by his belief that disease outbreaks only affect unvaccinated children. When asked for evidence he said he didn?t need any because it was a ?fundamental doctrine of holy writ in medicine?.
However, it is not true. In fact, most of the victims of these diseases are those who have been vaccinated for them.
In 1989 the U.S. health department documented 170 measles outbreaks in the country and found that 89% of the victims had been vaccinated for measles. School outbreaks were reported where ALL the victims had been vaccinated.
In the same year a 20 month study of whooping cough in Nova Scotia was published revealing 96% of the victims had been vaccinated for whooping cough.
In Australia in 1996, the South Australian Heath Commission released seven years of data on whooping cough showing 87% of the victims had been vaccinated. More recent Australian data shows the vast majority of children with whooping cough have been appropriately vaccinated.
https//vaccinationdilemma.com/whooping-cough-australian-children-how-many-were-vaccinated
Statistics such as these are normal in the medical literature. Supporters of vaccination provide a simple mathematical explanation for it. Opponents argue we can no longer assume we have useful vaccines.
In addition to this, for ethical reasons, proper clinical trials have not been carried out to establish the value of our vaccination programs.
Vaccination is thought to protect us from disease. The truth is this is questionable.
Have you been led to believe that the chance of being harmed by a vaccine is very remote?
Once again, I was. Vaccination is marketed as one of the safest interventions of medicine. It is said to have an impeccable safety record after being used for decades in the global community.
Opponents point out that the reporting system for collecting the data for these conclusions is so poorly designed that some experts estimate only 1% of negative outcomes from vaccination actually reach the database.
They also point out that a United States Institute of Medicine study concluded that although vaccination is probably responsible for a long list of negative outcomes including blood disorders, infections, paralysis, behavioural problems and death, the frequency of these cannot be estimated due to insufficient research.
The truth is vaccines pose a risk ? one that is yet to be quantified.
-
A reason for most of the people ho get diseases being vacinated may be that almost all people are vaccinated, so if there are no people not vaccinnated logically they are not hoing to be sick.
I am not defending one thing or the other and personally I think that today information on science if politically controlled. That is, the freedom of information regarding science is non existent. We get whatever they want to give us, true or false does not matter.
So much for science or not science.
In the same way that "history" is a weapon used to destroy countries by creating remorse and lack of self-esteem, science is also used as a weapon. Of course it is not science, but the instrumentalisation of science, just like history is not history but its instrumentalisation.
In shorthand we are going to be given the truth.
Salaam
-
Plus about this measles vaccine, i found this
Sardar you are just finding articles that fit your narrative. You are not reading them critically.
Please re-read my post again. I posted a graph that AGREED with YOUR point of view and then I asked you to think why that graph's conclusion might be wrong.My Question Again is
Q. Looking at the graph and the conclusions drawn can you think of any reason why the conclusion is wrong?HINT is "death from measles" the only metric we should be looking at?
Also, Please don't cut and paste whole articles ... just the link thanks.
-
Sardar you are just finding articles that fit your narrative. You are not reading them critically.
Please re-read my post again. I posted a graph that AGREED with YOUR point of view and then I asked you to think why that graph's conclusion might be wrong.My Question Again is
Q. Looking at the graph and the conclusions drawn can you think of any reason why the conclusion is wrong?HINT is "death from measles" the only metric we should be looking at?
Also, Please don't cut and paste whole articles ... just the link thanks.
My narrative? I just suspicious about the vaccine of chemical usages. Now to your question, i sadly don't have a answer since i don't know sadly much about graph stuff. And why do you think i believe that your conclusion is wrong? What is your conclusion exactly? Because i sadly don't follow you because i don't where this is leading to.
-
My narrative? I just suspicious about the vaccine of chemical usages. Now to your question, i sadly don't have a answer since i don't know sadly much about graph stuff. And why do you think i believe that your conclusion is wrong? What is your conclusion exactly? Because i sadly don't follow you because i don't where this is leading to.
I have engaged with you a few times and you just bombard me videos and blogs to support your point.
I was trying to get you to look at them critically. If you don't understand graphs and statistics then why did post a link to a blog that uses it.
If you are unable evaluate the correctness of a video or blog then you shouldn't post it.It seems like you want other people to do the thinking for you rather bring your own arguments. This is what Sunni do when they just refer you to their sheikh rather engage in a meaningful conversation.
So, where does your suspicion about vaccines come from? Is it personal experience or what you read on the internet.
-
I have engaged with you a few times and you just bombard me videos and blogs to support your point.
I was trying to get you to look at them critically. If you don't understand graphs and statistics then why did post a link to a blog that uses it.
If you are unable evaluate the correctness of a video or blog then you shouldn't post it.It seems like you want other people to do the thinking for you rather bring your own arguments. This is what Sunni do when they just refer you to their sheikh rather engage in a meaningful conversation.
So, where does your suspicion about vaccines come from? Is it personal experience or what you read on the internet.
Bold 1 Actually I have only given you 2 blogs & 2 videos in the conversation. Last time we spoke, you made comments on Ibrahim smashing idols to make criticism against Quran which i responded to you
https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9610209.msg416495#msg416495
Bold 2 Because at the time, i thought you were defending vaccines of chemical usages since you didn't react well since when i showed that video with Rupert Sheldrake.
Bold 3 Want others to do thinking for me? What? When & why do i want others to think for me? That wouldn't help me at all.
Bold 4 No i have not experience it but i have seen videos on children that were vaccinated had horrible effects on them, like this poor girl
https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8CVmWsGFZA
Here are from the published studies from US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3878266/
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623535
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25377033
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24995277
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12145534
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099159
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3364648/
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17454560
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19106436
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3774468/
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3697751/
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21299355
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21907498
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11339848
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17674242
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21993250
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15780490
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12933322
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16870260
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19043938
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12142947
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24675092
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25198681
