Bones or Muscles .... what came first?

Shari'a, errancies, miracles and science
Post Reply
User avatar
Trojan
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:47 pm
Location: Inside the kaaba

Bones or Muscles .... what came first?

Post by Trojan »



According to the koran
[23.14] Then We made the seed a clot, then We made the clot a lump of flesh, then We made (in) the lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, then We caused it to grow into another creation, so blessed be Allah, the best of the creators.
In contrast:
Dr. T.W. Sadler, Ph.D., Associate Professor in the Department of Anatomy at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514, and author of Langman's Medical Embryology, Dr. Sadler states,

"At the 8th week post fertilization, the ribs would be cartilaginous and muscles would be present. Also at this time ossification would begin near the angle of the rib and would spread along the shaft until it reached the costal cartilage by the 4th month. Muscles would be capable of some movement at 8 weeks, but by 10-12 weeks this capacity would be much better developed."

It is always better to have two witnesses so we shall see what Dr. Keith L. Moore has to say about the development of bones and muscles in his book The Developing Human. Extracted from Chapters 15-17 we find the following information:

The skeletal and muscle system develops from the mesoderm, some of which becomes mesenchymal cells. These mesenchymal cells make muscles, and also have the ability to differentiate...into osteoblasts which make bone. At first the bones form as cartilage models so that by the end of the sixth week the whole limb skeleton is formed out of cartilage but without any bony calcium as shown in Figure 15-13.[23]


While the bone models are forming, myoblasts develop a large muscle mass in each limb bud, separating into extensor and flexor components. In other words, the limb musculature develops simultaneously in situ from the mesenchyme surrounding the developing bones. So Dr. Moore agrees completely with Dr. Sadler.

Furthermore, during a personal conversation with Dr. Moore I showed him Dr. Sadler's statement and he agreed that it was absolutely valid.
http://www.answeringislam.info/Quran/Science/alaqa.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So how far do muslims have to go to Justify Galen's 7th cetury plarerized embryology in the koran as being the correct one? In the video it is mentioned ( without any evidence or source ) that "new technology" has proved that infact the bones do ossify first and then muscles are developed around them.

Can anyone confirm this New technology?

"Muslims are the first victims of Islam, to liberate them from this religion is the best service that one can render them..."
Ernest Renan (1823-1892)

User avatar
charleslemartel
Posts: 2884
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Throne Of Allah

Re: Bones or Muscles .... what came first?

Post by charleslemartel »

Allah and his messenger know best! :lol:
Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.

crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: Bones or Muscles .... what came first?

Post by crazymonkie_ »

There is no 'new technology,' because such discoveries would already be upending ALL we know of embryology in the West. (That's embryology of any damn thing that has bones, BTW.) See, unlike what most Muslims think, the West is NOT afraid of new information, nor is there some massive anti-Muslim conspiracy to silence all Quran-based 'miracles' (such as blatant copying of Galen's medical knowledge). If the truth really WAS that bones form first, then flesh around it, we in the West would know about it... and, more importantly, it wouldn't really upend our world view.

Nor would it prove the Quran right in any sense. As ANYONE who has the tiniest smattering of historical knowledge will tell you, this 'knowledge' was common for centuries (close to a millenium, actually) among pre-Islamic civilizations; the same civilizations that, juuuuust coincidentally, the Ummayads and Abbasids took over and learned from (as opposed to the mainly Greek-speaking Christian kingdoms at the time, who were very active in destroying 'pagan' learning).

It's probably the same technology that showed Zam Zam water's miraculous healing properties.

sum
Posts: 6563
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Bones or Muscles .... what came first?

Post by sum »

Hello lakerstekkenn

Are you of sound mind?

sum

crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: Bones or Muscles .... what came first?

Post by crazymonkie_ »

Of course this person isn't of sound mind. Could be insane, could just be deep into the intellect-melting faith we all know and love oh-so-well here.

Oh, also: Fetal development.

One important quote:
Four Months

Your baby is now about 5 inches long and weighs 5 ounces. His skeleton is starting to harden from rubbery cartilage to bone.
It's almost FOUR MONTHS before bones form in human embryos.

Other animals with bones follow exactly the same line of development: Flesh, then bones.

Pwnt.

User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: Bones or Muscles .... what came first?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

lakerstekkenn wrote:next one hahaahhhaha ants dont talk haaaahaahha
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... other.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; next hahahhahhah
Wow!!! What a freak. Gee, what a surprise it is to learn he's a Muslim. :lol:
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Bones or Muscles .... what came first?

Post by manfred »

There is something else very interesting in this verse:
[23.14] Then We made the seed a clot, then We made the clot a lump of flesh, then We made (in) the lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, then We caused it to grow into another creation, so blessed be Allah, the best of the creators.
This is another clear indicator of Islam's pagan, polytheistic roots. Allah is not the biblical God, but simply the biggest or "best" of the idols in the Kaaba.

The same is also stated here:
Qur'an 21:56 "He said, 'Nay, your Lord is the Lord of the heavens and earth, He created them and I am a witness to this. I have a plot for your idols and will do something against them after you go away and turn your backs.' So he broke them to pieces, (all) but the biggest of them, that they might turn to it."
Here the ficticious Islamic Abraham is doing what Mohammed did centuries later: he is breaking the idols, so that people turn the the only one he had left, the biggest one.

It's amazing the quran survived to long as a so-called divinely authored text; it is even more amazing that there are people in 21st century trying to tell us there are insights of modern science in that mottley collection of ravings of a madman.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Trojan
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:47 pm
Location: Inside the kaaba

Re: Bones or Muscles .... what came first?

Post by Trojan »

allah wrote: [23.14] Then We made the seed a clot, then We made the clot a lump of flesh, then We made (in) the lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, then We caused it to grow into another creation, so blessed be Allah, the best of the creators.
Some thing is quite weird here, If you notice allah (or Galen?) suggests the complete transformation from one stage of being to another, not partial or accessory and gradual developements in an embryo, that infact actually takes place. So allah (or Galen?) says in 23:14 that:

The seed (singular) was made into a clot (a complete transformation one form to another) then the clot was made into a lump of flesh (a complete transformation one form to another) then the lump of flesh was made into bones, so according to this verse the entire lump of flesh ossified into bones (a complet transformation one form to another) and then these same bones were covered with flesh.

Now someone doing the translation must have realized that there was something not right with the verse so they took the liberty to insert (IN) to read:
allah wrote:.....then We made (in) the lump of flesh bones.


The only problem with doing this is that they assume that bones were created in the flesh and then the same bones that were already surrounded with flesh because the bones were created within it is again covered with flesh.
Is it just me or does anyone see a problem here?

I could be wrong. Can any arabic speaker confirm if the implied "IN" actually belongs here or is it just inserted for an attempt at relevance?

"Muslims are the first victims of Islam, to liberate them from this religion is the best service that one can render them..."
Ernest Renan (1823-1892)

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Bones or Muscles .... what came first?

Post by manfred »

A word for word litteral translation looks like this:
Then We created the drop/male's or female's secretion (into) a blood clot/sperm/ semen , so We created the blood clot/sperm/semen (into) a piece of something chewable of flesh or other , so We created the piece of something chewable of flesh or other (into) bones , so We dressed/clothed the bones (with) flesh/meat, then We originated/developed him (into) another creation, so blessed (is) God, best (of) the creators
.

source: http://www.openburhan.com/

The text in arabic is quite rythmic and you can see a shadow of that in this word-by-word translation. You are right: we clearly get a list of sequential steps:
  • drop/male's or female's secretion (into) a blood clot/sperm/ semen
  • blood clot/sperm/semen (into) a piece of something chewable of flesh or other
  • something chewable of flesh or other (into) bones
  • dressed/clothed the bones (with) flesh/meat (it does not say where this particular meet is coming from, as any meat mentioned earlier has been changed to bones)
  • originated/developed him (into) another creation ( it gets a bit woolly... we have flesh and bones, but we are not told any next steps..)
There is no "into" in the text. However, the structure of the text is exactly identical in the first three "steps". The first two are indisputably describing a transformation of one thing into another. If we get a completely identical third structure, why would we think the author was saying something completely different? The flesh is transformed into bones, in the same way as a ws turned into b an b in c in the first two steps. Any other reading simply reads our modern minds into an old text.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Post Reply