News:

About us: a forum for monotheists, and discussion of Islam based on The Quran

Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Topics - god1quran1

#1
Matrimony / Looking for a Male Marriage Partner
November 06, 2023, 05:47:33 PM
Salam,

I am looking for a Quran alone believer for my daughter who is 25 years old. You can PM me or email me at positivethinker1@protonmail.com . We live in Ontario, Canada.

Peace
#2
The University of Bologna in Italy has found what it says may be the oldest complete scroll of Judaism's most important text, the Torah.

The scroll was in the university library but had been mislabelled, a professor at the university says.

It was previously thought the scroll was no more that a few hundred years old.

However, after carbon dating tests, the university has said the text may have been written more than 850 years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22697098

It will be interesting to know if there are any major differences between this scroll and present day Torah although I would assume that even this scroll will not be in its original form to what was revealed to Moses and Aaron.

#3
Salam Everyone,

I was research Ayah 25:5, which talks about Muhammad writing the Quran down with his own hands. Can someone kindly give me the verb form of the word ik'tatabahā and if possible give a little detail on how it translates to 'he has wriiten down.' Yusuf Ali translates the word as 'he has caused to be written'. I am assuming he got this meaning due to the influence of Hadith which suggests Muhammad was illiterate

The full translation is
   "   And they say: "Tales of the ancients, which he has written down: and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon.""


thanks.
#4
Science / Archaeopteryx: The "Missing" Link
January 26, 2007, 11:36:32 PM
Until yesterday I did'nt realize that I was in distinguished company. A forum member having a very "interesting" avatar.

The   Archaeopteryx has been one of the "prized" finds of the evolutionists, allegedly providing "proof" of a link between  dinosaurs and birds. According to talkorigins,

Quoteit is a "clear fossil intermediate between two vertebrate classes

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#Archaeopteryx

in a lengthy polemic that makes an attempt to answer some simple questions posed in "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells.

Mr. Wells' claim was
Quote
This fossil (Archaeopteryx) is portrayed as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds, but modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it.

Without providing clear evidence for the latter part of Mr. Wells question, talkorigins zealously stands by its claom that

QuoteEither way, it is clear evidence that a transition between the classes occurred.

There is another website by the name of New Mexicans for Science and Reason that has attempted to take on Mr. Wells simple query. According to Scott Goodman

QuoteWells misrepresents two crucial facts about Archaeopteryx and how it is presented in modern textbooks. He falsely claims that Archaeopteryx is presented as a direct ancestor of modern birds and presents an incorrect definition of the scientific concept of a transitional form that tries to restrict it apply only to organisms known to be in direct line of descent between two groups. Throughout this chapter, he includes irrelevant information whose sole purpose seems to be to cast aspersions on the honesty and integrity of scientists and teachers generally.

There was a time when Archaeopteryx was considered to be in a direct ancestor-descendent line between dinosaurs and modern birds, but that is no longer the case, largely because of the important morphological differences between Archaeopteryx and modern birds. It is now generally considered to be a side branch. However, while no longer considered to be the "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds, it is unquestionably recognized as an important transitional form between dinosaurs and modern birds and is properly and correctly presented as such in the best modern textbooks.

http://www.nmsr.org/text.htm#archy

So now another evolutionist is claiming that it is no longer considered a missing link between dinosaurs and birds yet is an important transitional form.

Note that talkorigins and NMSR use totally different arguments to defend their claims.

After a lengthy rant, the author ends the argument by saying

QuoteThe right answer is, again, that the Cretaceous dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx shared a common ancestor, a protobird that lived before Archaeopteryx. And while the exact ancestor has not yet been identified, there are small dinosaurs that might be protobirds that have been found to occupy the right period of time to be that ancestor.

Does the above provide any evidence that the Archaeopteryx be considered a transitional form? Ofcourse not.

More recent research has shown the absurdity of such a claim



Date:     October 10, 2005
Scientists Say No Evidence Exists That Therapod Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds

Science Daily ?

CHAPEL HILL -- No good evidence exists that fossilized structures found in China and which some paleontologists claim are the earliest known rudimentary feathers were really feathers at all, arenowned ornithologist says. Instead, the fossilized patterns appear tobe bits of decomposed skin and supporting tissues that just happen toresemble feathers to a modest degree.

Led by Dr. Alan Feduccia ofthe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a team of scientistssays that as a result of their new research and other studies,continuing, exaggerated controversies over "feathered dinosaurs" makeno sense.

"We all agree that birds and dinosaurs had somereptilian ancestors in common," said Feduccia, professor of biology inUNC's College of Arts and Sciences. "But to say dinosaurs were theancestors of the modern birds we see flying around outside todaybecause we would like them to be is a big mistake.

"The theorythat birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurswere feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumpedall over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of 'dinosaurian science'as evidence against the theory of evolution," he said. "To paraphraseone such individual, 'This isn't science . . . This is comic relief.'"


Areport on the team's latest research appears in the Journal ofMorphology published online Monday (Oct. 10). Other authors are Drs.Theagarten Lingham-Soliar of the University of KwaZulu-Natal in SouthAfrica and Richard Hinchliffe of the University College of Wales.

Usingpowerful microscopes, the team examined the skin of modern reptiles,the effects of decomposition on skin and the fossil evidence relatingto alleged feather progenitors, also known as "protofeathers."

Theyfound that fossilized patterns that resemble feathers somewhat alsooccur in fossils known not to be closely related to birds and hence arefar more likely to be skin-related tissues, Feduccia said. Much of theconfusion arose from the fact that in China in the same area, two setsof fossils were found. Some of these had true feathers and were indeedbirds known as "microraptors," while others did not and should not beconsidered birds at all.

"Collagen is a scleroprotein, the chiefstructural protein of the connective tissue layer of skin," he said."Naturally, because of its low solubility in water and its organizationas tough, inelastic fiber networks, we would expect it to be preservedoccasionally from flayed skin during the fossilization process."

Althougha few artists depicted feathered dinosaurs as far back as the 1970s,Feduccia said the strongest case for feathered dinosaurs arose in 1996with a small black and white photo of the early Cretaceous period smalldinosaur Sinosauropteryx, which sported a coat of filamentousstructures some called "dino-fuzz."

"The photo subsequentlyappeared in various prominent publications as the long-sought'definitive' evidence of dinosaur 'feathers' and that birds weredescended from dinosaurs," he said. "Yet no one ever bothered toprovide evidence -- either structural or biological -- that thesestructures had anything to do with feathers. In our new work, we showthat these and other filamentous structures were not protofeathers, butrather the remains of collagenous fiber meshworks that reinforced theskin."

Belief in the existence of the "dino-fuzz feathers" causedsome scientists to conclude that they served as insulation, and hencedinosaurs were warm-blooded.

The researchers also examinedevidence from five independent, agreeing studies involving structuraland genetic analyses related to the "tridactyl," or three-fingered,hand, which is composed of digits 1, 2 and 3 in dinosaurs, Feducciasaid. That is the most critical characteristic linking birds todinosaurs. They found that embryos of developing birds differedsignificantly in that bird wings arose from digits 2, 3 and 4, theequivalent of index, middle and ring fingers of humans. To change soradically during evolution would be highly unlikely.

"If birds descended from dinosaurs, we would expect the same 1, 2 and 3 pattern," he said.


Current dinosaurian dogma requires that all the intricate adaptations of birds'wings and feathers for flight evolved in a flightless dinosaur and thensomehow became useful for flight only much later, Feduccia said. Thatis "close to being non-Darwinian."

Also, the current feathereddinosaurs theory makes little sense time-wise either because it holdsthat all stages of feather evolution and bird ancestry occurred some125 million years ago in the early Cretaceous fossils unearthed inChina.

"That's some 25 million years after the time ofArchaeopteryx, which already was a bird in the modern sense," he said.Superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million yearsold."


Feduccia said the publication and promotion of feathereddinosaurs by the popular press and by prestigious journals andmagazines, including National Geographic, Nature and Science, have madeit difficult for opposing views to get a proper hearing.

"Withthe advent of 'feathered dinosaurs,' we are truly witnessing thebeginnings of the meltdown of the field of paleontology," he said."Just as the discovery a four-chambered heart in a dinosaur describedin 2000 in an article in Science turned out to be an artifact,feathered dinosaurs too have become part of the fantasia of this field.Much of this is part of the delusional fantasy of the world ofdinosaurs, the wishful hope that one can finally study dinosaurs at thebackyard bird feeder.

"It is now clear that the origin of birds is a much more complicated question than has been previously thought," Feduccia said.

The UNC scientist is the author of more than 150 papers and six majorbooks, including The Age of Birds, which Harvard University Presspublished in 1980 and The Origin and Evolution of Birds, published byYale University Press in 1996.

Among other discoveries, Feducciafound by a careful examination that Archaeopteryx, the earliest knownbird and one of the world's most famous fossils, could fly. Previously,many scientists thought the animal to be an Earth-bound dinosaur.

Hedetermined its flying ability by observing that the fossil's feathershad leading edges significantly shorter than their trailing edges,which is characteristic of all modern flying birds. The edges offeather of birds incapable of flight, such as ostriches, aresymmetrical.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/06/000625231641.htm





Continued .....


#5
Aidid Safar claims that the water Zam Zam is obtained from the reverse osmosis process and the equipment is installed the Kaaba. Is this true? I did a web search but could not find any useful links. If this is true when was this done and what were people drinking before the equipment was installed say a 100 years ago?

Any information in this regard will be appreciated.

peace.