Please debunk this

[entropy]

I bet you can find within the writings of Nostradamus that he also foretold of the science of the "scaffolding" for the synthesis of the first RNA molecules.

[Lolilla]

Some Muslims claim that the following is evidence of anachronistically advanced scientific knowledge in the Qur'an (i.e. that it must have been sent by God because Arabs at the time did not know about abiogenesis). Please debunk this belief, since I'm failing to do so in an effective manner, but feel that I'm socially conditioned to favour the Qur'an.

The Qur'an says:
And indeed We created man (Adam) out of an extract of clay (water and earth). [23:12]

Meanwhile, we have Jack Szostak saying Montmorillonite (clay crystals) located in springs could very well have served as "scaffolding" for the synthesis of the first RNA molecules.*

Actually I have the same problem with a friend, but he also cited another verse: "And made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised" (32:8)
But he said that the important part is the  word used for "extract" or "quintessence" (the same in arabic). He said that it means somethink like "extracted out from it" or "essence, the best part of it". But how could they know that it is just a bit of the sperm that is fertilizing the ovum, you know? Or the same with the clay-part... he said, that this means it is not the clay itself, but something extracted from it.
I just wonder why Mohammed didn't just write clay or semen without the "extract"... because this is really kind of true, don't you think? I hope you can help me, because I do not really know how to say something against this right now!

I really hate this stuff.

[Plu]

It's still just poetry speak. He could've meant a million things, that's why it's both so hard to conclusively show that it's bull and entirely useless as a guide book; it will say whatever you want it to say because the book is very specific about never mentioning things by name.

The fact that there is a single word that would accurately describe the situation but they use a string of words that could mean a lot of things means they had no idea what it was, only that it was kinda sorta related to something they did understand.

[SGOS]

It's still just poetry speak.  

I like that term.  Holy books are heavy on it.  One of the hallmarks of poetry is the use of implied meanings, sometimes thought provoking, as in, "What is the author saying?"  The very reason, you have to ask that question is because the poet uses unique combinations of words to get a point across.  In short, he's not being specific.  

Literature lovers and high school English teachers love this sort of thing.  But such non specific language creates a clarity problem.  Science texts are not written in poetic form, and for good reason.  The lack of clarity in poetry is challenging and even fun, but hardly the best way to explain things with precession.  That's why such language is so much a part of holy books.  

The meanings of passages can be interpreted with a wide latitude that allows for wiggle room, that can appeal to individual biases.  In other words, you can read anything you want into such texts.  Science is not geared to giving you want you want.  It supports things with facts.  It's much harder to assume what you want to be true with science.

I believe that the poetry of holy books is there to encourage muddled thinking; It sounds so lovely, it must be true.  That sort of thing.

[Lolilla]

That is a plausible explanation. I also noticed that there are several other verses where the Quran says that humans are created out of sperm or clay without the "extract", so I think this is rubbish...

Ok just one more, everything else he gave me was easy to debunk ;)
It is about this verse (6:67)
"For every message is a limit of time, and soon shall ye know it."
or in a different tranlsation
"For every announcement there is a term, and ye will come to know."

The point is that already the first commentators of the Quran didn't really know what to make of this verse. Even in context it's very strange:
"Say: "He hath power to send calamities on you, from above and below, or to cover you with confusion in party strife, giving you a taste of mutual vengeance - each from the other. See how We explain the signs by various (symbols); that they may understand. But thy people reject this, though it is the truth. Say: "Not mine is the responsibility for arranging your affairs; For every message is a limit of time, and soon shall ye know it." (6:65-67)

Nowadays they say that this refers clearly to the scientific miracles in the quran that are discovered in our time, though the quran is 1400 years old.
I think this sounds rather strange and it confuses me that the people about that time already didn't know how to interpret this sentence. What do you think about this?

(If somebody is interested, this is what the early commentators thought:
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMa ... nguageId=2
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMa ... nguageId=2)

[Plu]

What's scientific about that? It's just ancient prophets threatening each other with non-existant beings handing out punishment. It's referring to "Everybody dies someday and all of the bad things we've talked about convieniently happen after that point where you won't be able to tell anyone we're full of shit. So be scared!"

And that's all it talks about.

[stromboli]

Clay is high in silicon. People are not.

 =D>

Pappy, I used to work with this old woman who retired at about the age I am now, 65. She had been a rodeo queen in her youth. She was about 5'4" and wrinkled and saggy as all get out. But she'd had a boob job when a young girl. It was weird, this wrinkled, saggy grandma type walking around with these over sized firm breasts just sticking out there. I'm pretty sure she was "high in silicon."  :-D

[the_antithesis]

Some Muslims claim that the following is evidence of anachronistically advanced scientific knowledge in the Qur'an

I'll bet they also believe that shoving your fingers up your nose and blowing real hard will increase your intelligence.

"Man is created out of an extract of clay (water and earth)," is not the same as "Montmorillonite could have served as 'scaffolding' for the synthesis of the first RNA molecules."

For starters, the montmorillonite hypothesis is not definite. It is a possible means by which RNA may have come about. What will muslims say if that theorem is disproven? Abandon the koran? Fuck, no. They don't care about that theory or any other "science" they find in their holy book.

Until they find a passage in their book that specifically states the scientific theory clearly, there is no reason to assume that "created out of clay" in any way refers to the idea that clay crystals may have help the first RNA molecules form.

Even if you accept that, the passage is incorrect since if the first RNA molecules formed this way, they it wouldn't be just man but all life that formed from this. In which case, the author of the koran spoke imperfectly and incorrectly. So which is it? Is the koran passage not about montmorillonite or is the koran imperfect. They can't have both.,

[Thumpalumpacus]

Attempting to justify one's belief by appealing to the discoveries of science is tantamount to admitting that one's faith is not enough to believe.

[SubcontinentalKiwi]

Let it be known that I am beyond satisfied with the replies here. If my opinion is worth anything: consider this debunked many times over.