Fernando wrote: That would be a lot easier if you could link to a text file of your video, then people could cut and paste it.
manfred wrote:Hi, and welcome to the forum. You can now post without waiting for a moderator.
OK I proof read it for you, but perhaps others also want to have a look.
45 sec: replace "know" with "knows"
2min 11 sec: I suggest "Scientific theories are meant to evolve" ("called to" does not quite fit)
2 min 58: I suggest "a formation of galaxies followed by a division into stars."
3 min 23: I suggest: It merely lists what was created in the six days. (enumerate means count)
3min 52: "the exegesis" (you cannot leave out the article here.)
4 min59: I suggest "Astronomers do not assert a perpetual sequence of day and night, nor does the Qur'an describe that as such. Similarly, the Qur'an does not suggest a revolving galaxy with its centre as axis."
7 min 24: say "water cycle"
7 min 44: "could be seen" instead of can. (Also the Qur'an mentions that man is made for a range of things, from water, a blood clot, mud, and even nothing, so you cannot just take one comment and ignore all the others...)
8 min 7: I suggest "Milk does not originate from somewhere inside the belly, between blood and intestinal excrement."
9 min 51: This is a little confusing....I think you mean: The verse 22:5 does not speak of parts of the embryo being out of proportion, nor does it mention anything about any mass of flesh being in proportion or not. In fact it does not discuss proportions at all.
10 min 24: " were not discovered UNTIL several centuries after the Qur'an" BTW... are you sure about that? People knew what eyes and ears are for, as well as the heart long before Mohammed. Perhaps re-write that bit ? Or did you mean to say HE SAID THAT? Then you need to write: "Contrary to Mr Bucaille's allusion THAT...." otherwise your sentence means what follows is your own view, and not his.
Please confirm I say what you wanted to say with: "Contrary to Mr Bucaille's allusion that the hearing, the eyes and the heart, and all that is mentioned in the Qur'an was not discovered until centuries after the Qu'ran was revealed..."
"All" when used on its own is SINGULAR in English, I know it's mad, but that's the way it is. Also, the Qur'an in grammatically an "it" in English, not a he. Is your native language French or Spanish? The way you speak seems to suggest that...
But overall, as Fernando says, your text is quite clear and perfectly understandable.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/abulkazem/science_in_quran.htmDr. Bucille is there to please the Arabs, the Islamists and to make money; tons of it. He also employs another tactic. He declares that his own faith (Catholic Christianity) is not as scientific as Islam is. What a great news for our new Mullahs! There can be no news sweeter than this, no news happier than this, no news more pleasant than this. Nonetheless, he actually fools the Islamists by throwing dust in their eyes. Never does he covert to Islam. But Mullahs are too docile and cretinous not to see his stratagem. How sad!
panis wrote:idesigner1 wrote:Bucailles and his Koranic predictions were debunked long time ago in old forum by T.H.Huxley.
Hi, do you have a link ?
idesigner1 wrote:panis wrote:idesigner1 wrote:Bucailles and his Koranic predictions were debunked long time ago in old forum by T.H.Huxley.
Hi, do you have a link ?
You can search old forum. Koranic embryology, gynaecology, conceiving fetus can be refuted by even a first year biology student. When Mo talks about male seed Bucallie takes it as original discovery. Mohammed had no knowledge or concept of Sperm and spermatozoa. He didn't state that sperm comes from testicles!
Koran talks about mountain building when mountains are called pegs inside earth. It says mountains keep earth stable! There are no pegs , there are no roots like tree. Mountains are of different kinds and has different internal structure. Even a first year geology student can kick ass of a dumb 5 th century Arab.
Perhaps it should have been "I did not master English language" rather than "I do not master".However no problem,just as people on this forum have understood my English as being that of someone whose mother tongue is not English,they will understand even yours with a sympathetic mind.
AFAIK the old forum was lost because of a technical problem, rather than closed to the public. You can see traces of it on the Wayback Machine but so far I've not found an entry that works and I think it must be gone forever, alas.Nosuperstition wrote:Is that forum still available.I believed it was made inaccessible to the public when I could not access it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest