Hamza Tzortzis Embryology Koran V2


Uploaded by StopSpamming1 on 11.04.2012

Transcript:
Hello, world,
I managed to miss a video with Hamza and Dan Barker. I was told about it and after a good
dose of Valium and turning down the speakers to accommodate for the high pitched, loud
and hectic voice, started watching it. After just a few minutes I started groaning in despair
and frustration.
After the usual introduction Hamza can now spend 20 minutes doing what he loves: spewing
nonsensical drivel which nobody can immediately check. Nobody can interrupt his onslaught
on the brain-cells of normally equipped humans. Less critical and naive co-inhabitants of
planet Earth will naturally applaud feverishly.
Now, as per usual, Hamza asks some inane questions, such as his all-time favourite tautology:
"why does something exist rather than nothing?" obviously thinking that "something" has a
higher intrinsic value than "nothing".
What Hamza, would he know just a teeny-weeny bit about philosophy, which he seems to think
is a word which elevates his trivial dribble to hitherto unknown scholastic heights, would
know is that there is a well-known encyclopaedia, the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy,
where one, should one be so inclined, could find a rational answer and many a perspicuous
argument regarding his eternal question: Why is there something rather than nothing? Their
answer is: Well, why not?
Who would’ve known that life can be so simple?
The paper makes fun of the question and proceeds to demonstrate that this is actually quite
a stupid and primitive question, but what would we expect from William Lane erm Hamza
Tzorztis? It boils down to a similar approach I took when demonstrating the ridiculous Kalam
Cosmological Argument, or KCA: look at the definitions.
If you enjoy more light-hearted essays on heavy topics I recommend this one:
While I was listening to the falsetto voice reaching its first crescendo I suddenly noticed
the appearance of a new iERA paper on embryology and the Koran - an oxymoron, by the way. Since
its initial appearance, it has now evolved into version 2.0. Is it any better than the
previous versions?
This was the opinion of a real-world biologist on the predecessor:
"I’ve also got a copy of Hamza Tzortzis’s new embryology paper that purports to show
the amazing and miraculous scientific revelations of the Quran with respect to scientifically
confirmed embryology. It’s total bullshit, and actually shows the puerile shallowness
of the Quran to good effect."
"It is quite possibly the most overwrought, absurdly contrived, pretentious expansion
of feeble post hoc rationalizations I’ve ever read. As an exercise in agonizing data
fitting, it’s a masterpiece."
Prof. PZ Myers
Well, I could not have said it better myself.
So, let me shelve the video for a moment and spend a bit of grey matter analysing the latest
release of a leaflet or pamphlet, which seems to require error fixes every few weeks:
EMBRYOLOGY IN THE QUR’AN, A Scientific-Linguistic Analysis of Chapter 23
The title is already a misnomer, as the used words "Scientific-Linguistic" make no sense
in this combination. Also, chapter 23 of the Koran consists of 118 sentences or verses
or ayat. Hamza looks at only 3 of these sentences, and not the entire chapter.
"And if you read Darwin, what did Darwin say and imply? If we were to evolve, like the
sharks, then it would be ok to rape women!"
He now summarizes the creation from clay and all this dadadada
This is what Hamza Tzortzis considers to be scientifically accurate and unknown in the
7th century. It is the summary of the most detailed sentences on human creation in the
Koran and what he considers to be embryology.
While a previous version of this pamphlet still contained the claim of a Koran demonstrating
knowledge not available in the 7th century, the following one did not, the current one
initially makes the mild assertion that the Koran does not negate "established facts"
or reality. How exactly established facts are established or what the definition of
an established fact is we are not told.
The actual text in form of an abstract starts on page 5 of the 77 pages. While the number
of pages sounds impressive, the content is not, consisting of repetitions and text in
unusually big font. If I were to write this I would use less than a page. But let’s
take a look at this before passing judgement, so ignore my previous comment. Maybe I can
make some short-cuts so that this will not be an hour long refutation video.
Hamza is not too sure what to call this stuff, so he fluctuates between paper, analysis and
study.
Here he says: "This study will provide a linguistic breakdown
of the relevant verses and correlate these linguistic items to established facts in the
field of embryology."
A study normally follows the evidence and is a question (such as: can the sentences
be correlated with scientific texts?) but instead Hamza says he will correlate sentences
from a religious book with established science, insinuating that one can do so. This means
he will take a result and look for a way to correlate it, not the other way around.
Can anyone explain to me what established facts are? Established by whom or what? For
what? Why? I get the strong impression that, over time, his IQ development is inversely
proportional to his BMI.
He throws around words such as "linguistic items", without bothering to explain them.
He will correlate them with the relevant verses, where I wonder what they are supposed to be
relevant to.
We, the reader, get the announcement that we will now receive an "overview of exegesis"
of the Koran. The last time I checked, the word "exegesis" meant a critical explanation
or interpretation of a religious text. But what we will get, in contrast, is an apologetic
explanation. I am also at a loss what an overview of exegesis is supposed to be.
What has me baffled is how the Koran should be made "accessible" or "intelligible", when
the Koran itself states in numerous sentences that it is easy to understand, clear, explained
and easy to remember.
What I will strongly contest here is the choice of words used in the next sentence, before
moving on as almost every sentence is faulty, wrong, a lie or fabricated is: "address various
contentions which attempt to challenge the credibility of the quranic discourse".
No, no, no, it is Muslims who make a claim. The claim is that the Koran is scientifically
accurate or does not contradict reality or whatever you want to call it. Nobody challenges
the credibility of the Koran, whether in discourse or not. That is down to faith. People like
me challenge claims other people make. Claims made by humans. The Koran exists. How can
anyone challenge that? The claim that it is scientifically accurate is challenged. When
shown they can’t meet the challenge, apologists like Hamza modify their claims and tone it
down to say it does not go against scientific accuracy. When this is proven wrong they say
the Koran is accurate. When this is proven wrong the claim is now: the Koran does not
negate reality.
Muslims need to prove their claims. I don’t claim anything but see that the claims made
by Hamza are wrong, faulty, erroneous and fabricated. I don’t accept them. I show
why they are childish and naïve. And wrong. Because people have shown him previous errors,
we are now on version 2 of this paper. Will Muslims start doubting this nonsense when
this "study paper" is on version 58? How come Muslims never wonder why - if all of this
so clearly resembles reality and was miraculously known in the 7th century - this is never mentioned
in any contemporary biology journals? The only time the Koran does get mentioned is
to show what people believed in ancient times and what was wrong with it.
The end of the page gives us a summary of the 3 sentences in the Koran. Before I get
a fit reading the rest of page 5, let me move on to page 6.
Page 6 starts off by asking: what is the Koran. What? Hang on, the title of this paper is:
EMBRYOLOGY IN THE QUR’AN
Wouldn’t it be logical to first ask: what is embryology? And then compare what the Koran
has to say in comparison to reality? But ok, let’s follow the approach of: I have here
a result, so how can I prove it? And we will see a bit later why he has every reason not
to define embryology.
Hamza decides to kick off with lecturing us on the book itself. Why does the Koran mean:
reading?? Hamza admitted that he does not really speak any Arabic, so he has to rely
on experts who do know the language, but then why does he change the opinion of experts
from "the recitation" to "reading"?
We also get a free lesson in Arabic, for what it’s worth, being told that al-kitab "lexically
implies a written book". How can a lexicon imply something? Does anyone know of a "non-written"
book?
How does the word book automatically lead to "writing, reading and reflecting upon"???
We now get the mind blowing, stupefying information that the Koran is divided into chapters. Wow!
Next we see something Hamza loves doing: the appeal to authority. He is too limited in
his intellectual capability to make a point and uses quotes attributed to someone else.
The normal usage is to make a point, explain the reasoning and why this is valid and then
back this up with scholars who hold similar opinions or interpretations. Hamza does not
make a point, but instead, quotes someone else.
Is the opinion of someone else saying something nice about the Koran relevant here? Hardly!
And letting us know that the Koran is read a lot is hardly useful for anything.
The next paragraph shows the full extent of Hamza’s dilemma: on the one hand the claim
that the Koran was written in heaven by a god on tablets. Golden tablets. Then read
out by a god to an angel made from light. This angel manages to miraculously teleport
to Earth, recite the same contents to Muhammad crouching in a cave - on his own, without
any witnesses - who then passed it on to his fellow Arabs, who then told this to scribes
who wrote the text down. It says here that Muhammad did not author the Koran, yet later
he asks how Muhammad could have known what was right or wrong and selected what belonged
into the Koran. Weird!
Hamza then demonstrates what happened historically and the inherent problems with this: Az-Zarqani,
a Koran scholar, makes a comment. In the 9th century CE. The earliest texts we have today
date from around the 9th century. We don’t have a date when the Koran was first completed.
We have some pages with Koranic sentences on them, which range from the 6th to the 8th
century. This is not totally unexpected as it is similar to the duration of writing the
New Testament. Similar also is the lack of contemporary documents regarding Muhammad
himself. We have only the hearsay collections of the hadiths and the biographies.
Written hundreds of years after Muhammad is said to have died. We simply don’t have
any contemporary texts or accounts. Comments turn up well after Islam was established and
when criticism was not actively encouraged.
This quote also illustrates the fact that the Muslim god is a highly anthropomorphic
god. Muslims have an astonishing knowledge about the characteristics of their god, such
as being able to see, talk and only use the Arabic language.
Next up we get told that we will be treated to a scientific exegesis. But hang on, how
can that work? Scientific means it is accurate, has been tested, measured, observed, treated
to experiments, can be falsified and is able to predict. Exegesis is a critical interpretation
of a text. A religious text. All it does is explain what the text meant for the audience
in the setting of the 7th century and then explain what the text could mean in our contemporary
environment.
If I have a battery, I can ponder and reflect for ages about its ability to start my car.
It will not help me in any way. Neither will the Koran. I have to measure it using a scientific
instrument. If I then measure the voltage of a battery, can I interpret this reading
any way I want? Can I measure the voltage of a battery as being 7 Volts and ignore it
as a possible fault when my car will not start? No.
Can I read a book, such as a James Bond novel, and scrutinise the various gadgets he receives
from Q for scientific accuracy? Come on, pull the other one.
But Hamza expects us to believe that the Koran is scientifically accurate and yet requires
scientific exegesis. When the Koran itself says it does not need this, as it is easy
to understand and remember, clean, clear and fully explained for all humans in all times.
Hamza now claims that "the method of the delivery of the words of the Qur’an" will explain
the meanings and the rulings. Does this mean I can finally calculate inheritance correctly,
after I have been explained what a number such as 2/3rds means?
Moving to page 7 the reader is told what is required for the scientific Koran exegesis.
Well, you take a Koran and prepare to be confronted with some puzzles, where you need to mix-and-match
the sentences. Such as the authors of the Koran did not want to divulge the information
where exactly sperm are produced, so, instead of correcting the prevailing opinion, the
location given is in form of a puzzle. "Between the backbone and the ribs". Because we know
the exact location today and the area mentioned does not include the testicles even when being
very generous, the interpretation of these words has undergone some miraculous evolution.
But more on that later.
Next we need information on some really important stuff, such as the length of a beard or whether
to drink water with your left or right hand and whether the poison is on the left wing
of a fly and the antidote on the other or vice-versa. Important things to ponder over
and reflect their meaning, all collected in several books, telling us what Muhammad did
or said. The Sunnah.
In the form of hearsay of what a person in the 9th century heard from his dad who knew
a man who had a cousin who heard from a nephew whose brother married the sister of the wife
of someone whose daughter was friends with the daughter of one of Muhammad’s numerous
wives, that Muhammad commanded not to speak on the toilet. Because "Salman reported that
it was said to him: Your Apostle teaches you about everything, even about excrement''
This is known as an unbroken chain of narration and is considered to be accurate because - well
it just is.
To top it off we get some special pleading and some emotional pleading. And the most
stupid argument: the language is a source for the exegesis of a book. If it would have
said translations, I would have understood and accepted it, but the language as such?
Maybe I am wrong here, but I would need someone demonstrating how this is possible and the
consequences thereof.
On to page 8, the beef of the paper.
Here, Hamza does the usual quoting-without-conclusion-trick to show us how science requires the Koran
to understand it and that the Koran is the foundation for all types of knowledge. Without
any explanation or evidence, asserted by an 11th century theologian. We need to blindly
accept that there are ~750 verses or sentences in the Koran conveying scientific contents.
Such as planets orbiting the sun, which is not mentioned in the Koran. What IS mentioned
in the Koran are obvious observations such as the fact that Earth has day and night.
Does this make it scientific? Does the Koran state that Earth is a sphere and orbits the
sun? That seasons are caused through a tilted North/South axis which in turn causes commands
regarding fasting from sunrise to sunset to be invalid? No.
What follows is the attempt at a definition of science itself. By a contemporary scient
ooops, no, Hamza quotes a long dead philosopher to define science today.
What escapes me is why there should be no consensus on what science is. Maybe theists
can’t agree or maybe philosophers of past centuries could not agree, but I don’t think
I am wrong in saying that scientists generally agree on the definition.
On page 9 we are now shown some examples of what calibre the Koranic science sentences
are:
"And who created all things and made them to an exact measure" How can this be observed,
measured, tested, falsified and applied? This is outright creation. To be accepted on faith.
Blind faith. Is there anything remotely scientific about this sentence? Is it accurate? Precise?
No.
The rest is just as mindless and totally inconsequential. A sample: "the Qur’an is an intrusive text
that seeks to engage with the inner dimensions of man". Can anyone explain what this means?
Does this in any way explain the language used or the words used to convey a meaning
regarding embryology? Searching a bit, I came across an explanation: the texts "also extensively
explore the relation between heart, mind, and human nature; between the inner self and
the outer world; and whether human nature is good or evil - a cumulative emphasis on
the inner dimensions of man that most scholars formerly believed came much later in Chinese
intellectual history." A Taoist explanation and not what a Muslim would have thought at
the beginning of the sentence.
Or does "The result is that the scriptures, being devoid of their multidimensional essence,
have lost their power to invoke the inner dimensions of man’s spiritual nature." sound
any better? A Jewish text.
Let me leave the excursion into the world of spiritual mumbo-jumbo.
On page 10 we get to Hamza’s pet hobby: make science and the contents of scientific
findings look bad. Make science into a "tism".
Utter rubbish. Science is not a view. It is a tool. Can a hammer, also a tool, prove itself
or question itself? Does it need to? Hamza pretends that there is a claim, but he just
made it up himself. And then says it is wrong and declares himself the winner. What an idiotic
and primitive human being.
This mix between outright lying and inane claims continues throughout the page. A definite
highlight is his statement: "Since evolutionary changes are inventible"
I have no words available to me, able to express the sadness, pity and simultaneous contempt
I feel for a person getting real money for writing this and then distributing it all
over the internet for anyone and everyone to see. Without any shame or remorse.
A person can be ignorant. Like I am ignorant of many things. But I don’t flaunt or write
down my ignorance and then send it to everyone on this planet. A person has the choice to
stay ignorant on a given topic. Or that person can stay wilfully ignorant, nevertheless talk
about it as though there was some knowledge and finally even lie to others, deceiving
them. On purpose.
This demonstrates again that the morality of an atheist is by far superior to that of
any theist because an atheist does not require any threat or reward for any altruistic action.
In spite of what the Koran allows, I don’t keep slaves or kill anyone for what they say
or believe. Hamza on the other hand condones the cutting off of limbs as punishment, which
I consider barbaric. A theist only acts on commands and can lie as they please when it
comes to their favourite fairy-tale book.
Back to the leaflet. On page 11 Hamza contradicts what he said
on page 8, by quoting Muhammad Mohar Ali in his book "The Qur’an and the Orientalists"
claiming that the Koran contains: "scientific facts and truths that have only recently been
discovered by man". He does so without providing any proof or evidence. Just the assertion.
He uses this quote in other pamphlets and topics and the view held by Prof Ali is remarkably
similar to Hamza’s blinkered view. I found the book online and saw only the usual twisting
and re-interpretation employed by Yahya, Naik, et al. Nothing new. Just good old post hoc
rationalisation or retro-fitting.
What is strange is that nobody ever mentions the absurdities in the Koran like the split
moon or that ants and birds can communicate with a human or mountains acting as stabilisers
or a parted ocean or a flying mule or birds killing an army of elephants by dropping stones
on them or a stick turning into a snake and the steak temporarily reviving a corpse. Are
all these scientifically accurate and demonstrable?
Does Hamza feel sheepish about all this nonsense? No, on the contrary, Hamza now claims that
the Koran rejects the mistakes of the 7th century knowledge level. He does not say where
and how. He seems to follow Mohar Ali in that mountains are pegs and that the Koran never
mentions invisible pillars, a firmament without cracks and sun and moon orbiting Earth.
Finally, on page 12, we come to the embryology section.
We find a repeat of the 3 Koran sentences we’ve already seen - and that fills another
page.
Hamza, in his ignorance now proceeds to present Koranic sentences, without having introduced
what embryology actually is. So he is comparing the Koran to something unknown.
He does not specify that the scientific branch of biology further branches into different
sections all the way to reproduction and finally human reproduction and embryology. Embryology
observes, measures, tests and describes human reproduction. Starting with the production
of sperm. If I play a creator for a moment, I would have to explain that contrary to the
production of the largest cell in the human body, the oocyte or ovum, which functions
inside the body at body temperature in a female, I could never quite get the production of
sperm to work on the males. So I had to transfer the production outside the body, where it
is a tad cooler. But still some sperm were too slow or even immobile. The placement mechanism
utilising erectile tissue also failed so many times that I made a deal with Pfizer to produce
a pill by mistake that would alleviate the erectile dysfunction.
What was a problem is that once I got the sperm production going at a reasonable rate,
I couldn’t cram the transportation and energy liquid production unit in there as well, so
I had to run some tubing past the valve which keeps on being stimulated and grows like crazy
and kills so many males. I’ll also have to fix that in a new version. The tubing was
too short to have a separate exit, so I just joined it with some existing stuff that worked.
Also, because all this was initially supposed to happen inside the torso next to the kidneys,
I forgot to update the book where I described this, so Muslims will have to specify that
the sperm production is a few centimetres above the penis, but plus/minus half a metre.
And then it fits again.
What worked fine in the male somehow is a disaster on the female side as they all seemed
to catch some infection or other all the time. Also, my timing and function on the ovum production
is a bit erratic, so the tuning leaves room for improvement. The ovum production plant
has also received some complaints as it very often produces unwanted cysts, causing immense
pain and discomfort.
This is probably due to the fact that I had problems with the single production unit on
the dinosaurs I had to retire and then the chicken, so I gave human females two of them,
just to make sure one worked, most of the time.
I need to come back to this area as somehow the couples that don’t want to, do and the
couples that do want to, don’t have offspring. I will never understand these humans I have
created.
Yet I won the competition and am called the best of the creators.
Let’s drop this role and return to Hamza’s human paper.
Hamza never explains why he picked these sentences, rather than some others which are on offer.
Are these more correct than the others? Why not take the ones in chapter 22 or 40, which
contradict the description in chapter 23, but seem just as crazy or correct as any of
the creation descriptions in the Koran.
Hamza thinks and believes that humans, him included, are made from mud. Or more grand:
from clay. And even more extravagant: an extract of clay. He doesn’t in the least get deterred
by the fact that most ancient civilisations mentioned this and we know today that we,
humans, are not clay-based, but carbon-based. Did the authors of the Koran know this? No.
Did they correct the others on this? No.
He insists on the clay version. Muslim apologists have, over the years come up with the explanation
that the significance lies not in the clay, but in the word "extract". But seriously:
does this change anything? Not really. I could write: extract of bamboo or extract of squirrel
and would achieve similar, if not better, matching results.
In addition, there is no such thing as standardised clay. The composition between clay pits varies
vastly between locations.
Oh and how does Hamza determine the components found in clay and humans? Through his "scientism",
which works just fine when he needs it to!
Hamza states that: "these elements are essential for human life". Which elements? No comment.
Why does he so blatantly lie to others?
He could have used any of the other materials suggested and utilised in the book, such as
XXX
But on page 14 we get the explanation for any doubts or inconsistencies: "addressed
by referring to the Islamic theological understanding of miracles. The creation of Adam was not
a natural event; rather it was a supernatural event that cannot be explained naturalistically."
If something does not quite fit, just change the language to mean something else. Or, declare
it a miracle, which can’t be verified. In other words, his previous assertions regarding
clay were just lies.
Meaning: Hamza asserts that the Koran is full of science which does not contradict reality
or scientific facts. If it does, he plays the miracle card and all is well. Oh boy.
No, this is stupid and I can’t believe a single human being with 2 functioning brain-cells
can pay any attention to these idiotic claims. Any Superman or Batman comic reflects reality
more than this.
How can anyone even consider this nonsensical, superstitious fabrication?
Onwards, on page 15 the reader can now witness a real miracle. When it comes to a word in
the Koran, the knowledge of the Muslim god is no longer required, but the knowledge of
Muhammad, the illiterate camel driver, is sufficient to explain that in embryology,
the nutfah is a single entity, but consists of male nutfah and female nutfah. If it consists
of male and female parts it is not a single entity. And please make up your mind whether
or not Muhammad knew something about human reproduction or not. Here on page 15 Hamza
says "Prophet Muhammad explained the nutfah as a combination of substances "from a male
nutfah and from a female nutfah" and on page 63 says Muhammad had no clue about it as he
never spent time on human reproduction or dissecting humans.
That this seemingly reflects Galen’s understanding of the 2 semens is sheer coincidence and needs
to be neglected. That for centuries this was seen to be exclusively
the male semen is sheer coincidence and needs to be neglected.
Hamza does not even realise that his frantic efforts to project modern knowledge onto an
old text are futile as embryology does not mention anything about a sperm and an ovum
mingling or mixing, but fusing or merging. Does the Koran mention this? No.
He soldiers on, trying to convince us that somehow, the semen can be torn apart to mean
a part of semen, which, due to his 21st century knowledge, could mean sperm, but it is simply
not there. Nothing is there except the common, superstitious creation myths believed to be
true over 1000 years ago.
If we go and look what a biology student has to learn about embryology, today, in the modern
age, we see, let's call it a typical curriculum
at a university.
You have the overview over the different modules and on the right hand side this shows you
what you already need to know, such as cytology and different methods of cell multiplication.
What we see now is that there are not only elements or single words but also processes.
Ovulation is a process. We see that you get elements, the male and female genital tracts,
and then what happens there and with them. We learn here that the male genitals to not
descend from the abdominal cavity but only a couple of centimetres.
Similarly you get the ovaries and the process how the egg is being produced.
Then we get the information that we will learn about preimplantation, which means that after
fertilisation we learn about the processes that lead to the formation of the zygote and
then once the gametes, the sperm and the ovum have merged - not mingled - but merged or
fused, this forms then the zygote and in the preimplantation phase this descends into the
uterus in the form of a blastocyst. There, it does NOT go and cling to anything, it descends
into the uterus and once inside the uterine cavity it attaches to the uterine wall via
an umbilical cord and the placenta.
Once the yolk has been used up all nutrient (and the waste) are being transported via
the umbilical cord.
We see that at university we get the elements and then, what these elements are doing. Not
just single, individual words, like the Koran presents, but we get how everything works
together and how it is created inside the womb through nature.
And then a very important point here: you also learn what can go wrong! The aberrations.
Because a lot can and does go wrong during a pregnancy, something the Koran does not
notice, specify, mention or go into. Of course if there were a god creating humans there
would be no faults or aberrations or whatever.
In reality, however, there are.
So, we have seen what we learn about reality at a university.
Does the Koran mention anything from this mini-summary? No, nothing. All of these elements
and processes are crucial - yet the Koran misses all of them. The Koran does not coincide
or follow in any way the actual events and totally contradicts reality. It represents
creation by a super-natural being without any evidence or demonstrable proof.
Remember I said I would explain why Hamza never defines anything? Well, here we see
that if he would define what embryology actually says, anyone would immediately cotton on the
fact that the descriptions offered in the various sentences in the Koran in no way even
resemble what happens in reality. The Koran mentions only a word here or there, without
any description of the underlying processes. The human has to do that. In his desperation,
Hamza declares the words as placeholders, where the human needs to insert the most correct
version of reality. But a rational mind will immediately identify this as dishonest, trying
to divert the attention away from the primitive and vague creation myth.
If we look at the description of how humans are created, we see that Adam is somehow created:
And We created you, then fashioned you (7:11)
No details given.
the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust,
then He said unto him: Be! and he is. (3:59)
I suppose it should be: and he was, but the main point is that we don't get told specifically
who was created how and from what. Jesus or Adam?
Created how? Using what process? He created him. Who exactly is him? With what
dust? On Earth? In heaven? Why can't this book ever be specific???
Next, He created for you from yourselves mates (30:21)
If the woman, who is not named in the Koran, was made from Adam, she was Adam's clone.
With identical DNA. She is called Adam's wife without anyone telling us about any marriage
or even her name.
But now Muslims are called "Children of Adam". We don't learn whether this is literal or
not or how a clone who is not a clone can have sex with himself and produce offspring
which results in the human race we have today.
Why are humans created? Well, we receive conflicting information: it could be to fill up hell,
as stated here: "I will fill hell with the jinn and mankind together" (32:13), or to
worship one of the gods or the best of the creators: "And I did not create the jinn and
mankind except to worship Me." (51:56) Or both. We will never know for sure.
The Koran cheekily asks: Who will revive these bones when they have
rotted away? (36:78), implying that a god will take humans into some sort of afterlife
with their bodies intact. What the authors did not ask themselves in their ignorance:
Is it true that all bones rot away? What about fossils or mummies? What about bones several
millions of years old?
On page 22 Hamza retracts his prior statements regarding the corrupt anatomist from Canada,
Prof Keith Moore. Hamza revives him and even uses a decades old YouTube video of Moore
reading a script by al-Zindani as academic and intellectual source. Will Muslims realise
this or will they politely applaud anyway?
But now he needs to follow what Moore said, who incidentally, did not speak a word of
Arabic, yet managed to introduce the leech-like into the Arabic language. And this was soon
found in dictionaries, because it sounded nice and gave Muslims the seal of approval
by a Western academic. Whether it was paid for is irrelevant.
Because Hamza now tries with all might to get an embryo to look like a leech, which,
in the real world, it does not, he needs to modify both, the Koran and reality. He resorts
to using sketches and drawings and even manages to insert an image or photo, which, if I recall
correctly, he said elsewhere was scientism and based on Photoshop. Oh dear. Now what?
Do watching Muslims realise this or do they apply selective amnesia so that in the one
video they frown upon images and in the next happily accept them as proof?
He also faces the problem that an embryo has a huge yolk sac attached, which is essential
for the development, but he can only make the embryo look like the desired shape without
it, so he knows the result and now looks for the proof in the form of words which somehow
make the embryo detached in some way from the yolk sac. But the embryo needs it, regardless
of what Hamza wants.
What I can say at this stage is that an embryo does not resemble a blood clot, a leech, a
worm or a lump of flesh. Hamza, being the lying and deceitful individual that he is,
inserts the word worm here, because Prof Myers mentions the word in an abortion rebuttal.
What Hamza does not grasp, however, is that Prof Myers was referring to the face of the
embryo, which was pictured in the anti-abortion poster complete with open eyes, with a nose,
lips and ears.
The same goes for all his desperate attempts to find some sort of book using words he can
quote mine which mention any kind of temporal development between bones and the surrounding
tissue. In the real world, there is no principle, where a bone or the skeleton is formed and
then clothed, dressed, covered, lined or cased. There are instances, where a bone is formed
first and some where the opposite is true. The dogmatic description in the Koran is wrong,
false, incorrect, mistaken, fabricated and dishonest.
I will skip some pages because it would take too much time and I would probably lose some
IQ points on every page, because Hamza just follows the same pattern of deceiving others
with invented similarities between the Koranic words and reality.
Finally, on page 39, Hamza claims that the sentence "We made him into other forms" is
used by all sorts of people and resembles reality.
But it in no way at all complies with reality as the embryo, once formed, simply grows and
does not change shape or form.
Claiming anything else is a blatant lie. Even his quotes confirm this.
The rest of the pamphlet, the 2nd half, starting on page 40 all the way to page 67 is Hamza
waffling and mindlessly babbling about what differences there are between Greek medicine
and the Koran. What a load of bollocks. Even Muslim scholars such as Basim Musallam acknowledge
this, yet Hamza spends all this time scratching for sentences which can make his book look
less man-made. He frantically tries to persuade the reader that at the time of Muhammad living
in Medina, nobody had any knowledge of Greek medicine. Hamza goes so far as to implore
us to believe that Muhammad was honest and would never lie. Maybe cut off a few heads
and plunder commercial caravans - but lie? Never! Hamza only accepts the view that Muhammad
was the only one with any knowledge on the contents of the Koran and that the revelation
chronology can be reconstructed. He totally ignores reality and quotes book after book
saying nobody knows for sure what the level of medical knowledge was. Yet even Muslim
commentators and doctors noticed the similarity.
What is mildly interesting is that Hamza vacillates between Koran and hadiths, the claimed divine
and obviously human accounts. What is outright hilarious is that a pamphlet claiming realistic
contents seriously advocates the presence of angels at some stage.
Does Hamza picture himself talking in a Kindergarten? Do grown-up Muslims take this guy seriously?
Hamza is clearly taking other Muslims for a ride, relying on their upbringing, which
discourages challenging what they perceive as authorities and scholars of the same faith.
Any Muslim who uses their brain while listening to Hamza's lies, fabrications, focused deceit
and clumsy misinterpretations will recognise them for what they are: wilful deceit, trying
at all cost to keep Muslims feeling comfortable and thus transferring money into his company's
account.
If, at this stage, there is still someone listening, thank you for your time.