Copout #2 to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing

For a longer list of objections and replies to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing, see the following page, http://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com/p/objections-and-replies.html

2. Copout: The arguments made by CaptainDisguise "rely" on mockery and insults.

Reply: There seems to be an outcry among certain individuals including Hamza Tzortzis regarding the style of presentation of the paper, Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing, which apparently and allegedly "relies" on mockery and insults. This of course is not true.

While such knee-jerk ad hominem attacks and 'copouts' were expected by the authors and contributors behind the paper, it nevertheless needs pointing out that the above objection is factually incorrect.

While it is the case that the presentation of an argument, however tasteless it is, does not invalidate the argument presented; it is still not true that any of the arguments presented in the paper or the responses to objections posted on the blog "rely" on "mockery and insults".

The paper as well as the replies to the objections on the blog have been written and presented in a very tasteful manner without resorting to mockery or insults as well as preserving objectivity as best as possible.

As such, a distinction should necessarily be made between the presentation of the paper from the personal blogs or sites of the authors behind the paper. 

For example, the youtube channel "Captaindisguise", which is run by one of the authors of the paper, is  considered as a place where the author engages freely with others and without adorning any aura of an artificial academic air. The author may or may not resort to 'mockery and insults" in such places. 

None of the authors, contributors or supporters believe that the personal styles reflected in their corresponding blogs or channels have any relevance to the objectivity and professionalism that has been maintained in the presentation of Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing.

However, it is still not clear what specifically was said by the authors of the paper to be accused of relying on "mockery and insults". A reasonable guess is that Hamza et al. are referring to the fact that the authors have demonstrated that Hamza Tzortzis has been dishonest, inconsistent and often deficient in his work. If this is the instance that has warranted the accusation of 'reliance on mockery and insults', then the authors disagree that this constitutes as "mockery and insults" and no apologies are made for stating blatant truths. 

Therefore, such baseless accusation can only be considered as yet another attempt to "convince the mind to circumvent the facts obstructing the path to their deeply held absurdities."

Those with a sounder mind are encouraged to read  the paper as well as the responses to raised objections before making premature judgements. An intense effort will be made to address all contentions, valid or otherwise, and will be presented in an organized manner on the blog

Copout #1 to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing

For a longer list of objections and replies to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing, see the following page, http://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com/p/objections-and-replies.html

1. Copout: "You have not studied Ancient Arabic for decades therefore everything you say is wrong or worthless"

Reply: "You have not studied Ancient Arabic for decades therefore everything you say is wrong or worthless", so sayeth every Muslim who wishes to avoid thinking about the valid contentions raised against many of their erroneous beliefs.

Specific to the paper, Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing, this is an especially irrelevant objection. The content of the paper can be divided into two main tasks;

1) Checking whether a "quote" or "idea" exists in the sources referenced by Hamza Tzortzis.
2) Evaluating the veracity and validity of the arguments proposed by Hamza Tzortzis.

Neither of the above tasks require a knowledge of a particular language, let alone years or decades of specializing in classical Arabic. The paper is not attempting to compose a literary review of any piece of Arabic text but rather provide a fact check on the truth claims made by Hamza Tzortzis.

Moreover, any usage of Arabic in the paper is based on the authority of classical and academic Arabic lexicons along with the consultation of 3 native Arab speakers from Saudi Arabia who have knowledge of classical or modern Arabic.

Thus, such an objection is a silly red herring intended for moving the goalpost and poisoning the well. Therefore, every thinking person can casually reject the naive zealots' attempt to convince the mind to circumvent the facts obstructing the path to their deeply held absurdities.