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.

Lowest Land Prediction Claim in the Quran Debunked

Lowest Land Prediction Claim

Argument

The Qur'an states that the Romans were defeated in “adna al-ard”. “adna” means lowest. “al-ard” means land or earth. Thus, the Qur'an states that the Romans were defeated in the lowest land.

The Romans were defeated at the Dead Sea Shore. The Dead Sea Shore is the lowest land on earth. Therefore, the Qur'an stated that the Dead Sea shore is lowest land on earth before anyone knew of this fact.

(Source for Argument)

Harun Yahya – The Victory of the Byzantium

http://miraclesofthequran.com/predictions_01.html

Verses

(Mohsin Khan Translation)

30:2-3 - The Romans have been defeated. In the nearer land, and they, after their defeat, will be victorious.

(Transliteration)

30:2-3 - Ghulibati arroom. Fee adna al-ardi wahum minbaAAdi ghalabihim sayaghliboon

For other translations, visit http://quran.com/30/2-3

Objections

1) Adna comes from the root word dal-nun-waw. Visit link below.
http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=dnw#%2830:3:2%29

According to lane's lexicon, the root word dal-nun-waw literally means "near" which has been the meaning given by all classical scholars and prominent translators and is in fact the more legitimate one.

(pg 920, middle column, Lane's lexicon)

(pg 921, third column, Lane's lexicon)

Visit link below for Lane’s Lexicon
http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume3/00000086.pdf
http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume3/00000087.pdf 

2) According to lane's lexicon, the definition "low" is not referring to depth BUT it is referring to inferiority/ weakness/ disgrace. The Qur'an has also used this word to mean "inferior" in verse 7:169

(pg 920, middle column, Lane's lexicon)

(pg 921, middle column, Lane's lexicon)

Visit link below for Lane’s lexicon.

http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume3/00000086.pdf
http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume3/00000087.pdf

3) Thus the Muslim apologist has committed the fallacy of equivocation and has failed to establish that the words “adna al-ard” does in fact mean “lowest land.”

4) Now let us assume that "adna al-ard" means "lowest/ deepest land". Harun Yahya states the following in his website (linked above under “source for argument”)

“for Christian Byzantium, the loss of the True Cross was the heaviest blow in that defeat in Jerusalem, located near the shores of the Dead Sea”

Now the problem is much simpler. Harun Yahya himself admits that the defeat occurred at Jerusalem. One can also confirm this in any academic source including the Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, Volume 1, page 555 which states the following,

“The advancing Persians killed thousands of Christians and destroyed hundreds of churches. On reaching Jerusalem in April 614, the Persians placed the city under siege for a month. When it finally fell, 60, 000 Christians were murdered and over 30,000 put into slavery as punishment for their resistance...In 627, the Byzantines defeated the Persians in a major battle at Nineveh” (pg 555)

(Stokes J & Gorman A. Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, Volume 1. Infobase Publishing. 2008)

Thus this entire apologist claim can be refuted with a single question. Does the Qur'an say that the defeat will be in a place located near the lowest land? Or does it say (according to Apologists) that the defeat will be in the lowest land.

If what Muslim apologists say is true, then the Qur'an would be in error since it would be saying that Jerusalem is the lowest land.

In conclusion, the term “adna al-ard” does not mean “lowest/ deepest land” and the Romans were not defeated at the Dead Sea shore. Therefore, this miracle claim has been debunked.

Sea Barrier Miracle Claim Debunked

Argument

The quran states there are barriers BETWEEN two seas. Modern science found there are barriers (called a pycnocline) in the sea. Therefore, quran contains modern science

Source for Argument
Harun Yahya - THE SEAS NOT MINGLING WITH ONE ANOTHER
http://miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_50.html

Verses

25:53 - And it is He who has released [simultaneously] the two seas, one fresh and sweet and one salty and bitter, and He placed between them a barrier and prohibiting partition.

55:19-20 -  He released the two seas, meeting [side by side]; Between them is a barrier [so] neither of them transgresses

Rebuttal

1) Pycnocline is not the same kind of barrier that is mentioned in the quran and thus they have committed the fallacy of equivocation; thus rendering their argument invalid.

“It has uniform properties and is bounded below by a large density gradient, called the "pycnocline"” (pg 84)

Liss P.S, Slinn W. George N. Air-sea exchange of gases and particles. Springer 1983.

“The layer of seawater with the largest density gradient is called a pycnocline. A pycnocline is a layer separating light surface waters from heavier deep waters.” (pg 30)

 “Saturation of seawater with oxygen abruptly decreases within the pycnocline: from 110-60%  above the pycnocline to 60-40% within the pycnocline, and up to 5-20% below this layer” (pg 297)

 “It is important to stress that the halocline (pycnocline) is also an important means whereby sedimentary material is transported laterally.” (pg 298)

Emilianov E.M. The barrier zones in the ocean. Springer. 2005

“The pycnocline (pyknos, “strong”; clinare, “slope, to lean”) is a zone in which density increases with increasing depth. This zone isolates surface water from the denser layer below. The pycnocline contains about 18% of all ocean water.” (pg 139)

(page 141)

Garrison, Tom. S. Essentials of Oceanography. Cengage Learning, Aug 5, 2011

2) Muslim apologists have failed to provide any support for the claim that when two seas meet there will be "a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed." (sura 25:53), "a barrier which they cannot pass" (sura 55:20). Therefore, the onus is on the muslim apologist to provide evidence that such a phenomena actually exists.

3) The so called "science" purported by muslim apologists is factually incorrect. It is physically impossible for two water bodies to prevent itself from mixing when they meet each other unless there is a solid impermeable barrier. Differences in temperature, salinity or density will not create "a forbidding partition" (NOTE: this can be easily tested in ones home). Therefore, the onus is on the muslim apologist to demonstrate such a phenomenon is possible.

4) The muslim apologist fails to consider the obvious and mundane explanation for this verse i.e the barrier is referring to the two seas being separated by land. Since, the quran describes the barrier as something that the seas CANNOT PASS, a land barrier is the most obvious explanation since a non-solid barrier can always be "transgressed".

5) The muslim apologist also fails to demonstrate why anyone should consider alternate fantastical (yet unsupported) claims of an imaginary invisible barrier OVER the obvious explanation of a land barrier.

6) The muslim apologist fails to consider similar verses in older texts namely the bible in

Proverbs 8:29 "when he gave the sea its BOUNDARY, so the waters would not overstep his command"

Jeremiah 5:22 "I made the sand a boundary for the sea, an everlasting BARRIER it cannot cross."

Almost the exact same terminology is used in both the bible and the quran.
Jeremiah 5:22 does in fact contain the word for barrier. The word is gheb-ool
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/gebuwl.html

7) The muslim apologist fails to consider the commonality of the knowledge prescribed to this verse as similar sentiment can be observed in scientific texts that are much older, namely that of the Greek polymath, Aristotle, when he states the following:

"Light parts are dissolved from the sea water by the sun and the dense, salty part remain" (pg 132)

"...This means that the sea has changed its place. it is possible that a gulf is formed when the barrier between the sea and lowlan is destroyed..." (pg 145)

Lettinck, Paul 1999. Aristotle's Meteorology and its reception in the Arab world

""For it is clear that a barrier of silt was formed and after it lakes and dry land, but in course of time the water that was left behing in the lakes dried up and is now all gone." (pg 27)

"The drinkable, sweet water, then, is light and is all of it drawn up: the salt water is heavy and remains behind." (pg 32)

Aristotle, Webster E.W. 2006. Meteorology.

8) Muslim apologists fail to realize that their desperate yet weak attempt at claiming scientific foreknowledge in the quran by the fallacious method of equivocating can be employed in other texts as well. For example,

i) (Ramayana BOOK III: Canto 31.: Rávan) “Breaking the wild sea's barrier down”

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rama/ry229.htm

If the muslim apologist’s line of reasoning is valid, then one would have to necessarily conclude that the Ramayana contains scientific foreknowledge which would then lead to contradiction as it is not possible for both Islam and Hinduism to be true. Since this line of reasoning leads to a contradiction, it follows that the line of reasoning is not valid!

9) (NOTE: i do not agree with point 9 but it still has some merit to it. This point was originally made by TheRationalizer). The muslim apologist fails to consider that this verse could easily be a rephrasing of verse 6 of the Book of Genesis which says "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."

_________________________