clone800

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 06:02am Nov 17, 1997 ET (#800 of 809)

29:64 (The unbelievers said) 'What is the life of this world but amusement and play?'

CB:I disagree, Raoul. I think, in general, the threat to the human dignity of

clones has not come from my religious friends. The threat appears to

come mainly from the other side.

Thnks for noting that some religious people are not totally against cloning, there are good sides of this technology.

CB: I think that most scientist are reputable and have decent ethical standards.

There is no doubt that we are all human beings and should be treated as one. The only difference is, we believers, think that there is another factor within the human itself, which could lead to bad moral conduct. That tendency, if not monitored correctly (by implementing laws), then... the society is going to be affected negatively by (some) of these people [either they are believers or non believers]

CB:This is something we have to fight, while guarding against laws that might give clones an artificially favored position. In my opinion, this is just as wrong as consigning them to an artificially unfavorable position

Yep, no doubt about this.

CB:Anyway, I think Joe did a pretty good job of it.

Thanks

CB:Being right is no test of manhood to me. If I am shown to be wrong, I would prefer to correct the wrong, and henceforth be right.

The same with me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 06:04am Nov 17, 1997 ET (#801 of 809)

29:64 (The unbelievers said) 'What is the life of this world but amusement and play?'

CB:I have a high regard for my fellow man, and for religion, and I recognize that you have a right to your belief system,

Thnks, I have been taught to respect human rights, and I will carry that out, as much 'conscious' as I can.

CB: even though I think it may have flaws.

People have different perceptions, and therefore they see 'truth' differently.

CB:Ah, I see that you were keeping up with the board even when you were silent.

I would sometimes jump on this board, usually during weekend

CB:You must be aware, however, that in the sense I used the term "demon lust," I used it with a humorous intent.

CB: There seems to be some evidence that some tendencies toward unsociable behavior is in the genes

This is still preliminary. My belief system also agreed, to a certain extent, the 'seed' from the 'good' people, will usually give 'good' human. By saying that, my belief system does not say that some babies are 'not good', but we strongly maintain that, babies are borned sinless and its up to the parents to guide them.

CB:If so, so much for "free will."

As a believer, free will is real to us, now and forever (now I can choose to answer this question, or just leave it alone: this idea is practically demostratable anywhere, now); no one knows what would happen to them, at the end. You may view it differently

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 06:09am Nov 17, 1997 ET (#802 of 809)

29:64 (The unbelievers said) 'What is the life of this world but amusement and play?'

CB:As a society, I certainly think we have a right to shield ourselves from such behavior, but perhaps the idea of punishment for such behavior is archaic.

Yes, we have to shield the society from any irresponsible behaviour. Captial punishment is practised in my belief system, BUT, with a just mechanism. The victim's family, may forgive the convicted murdurer, by asking the murderer to pay a fine (as decided by the victim's family, as low as possible, millions may not be a great idea) and this is in fact encouraged by God. If however, the family's victim say yes to capital punishment, then the system have to play its part, in order to preserve justice.

CB:Joe, I think you have defended your belief system very well

Thnks again, it's actually an obligation pointed by my belief system, if anyone seeks for info, then I have to pass it to others. But, I am not allowed to disrespect other's decision.

CB:Ah, the sense of humor is finally revealed

I have said what I've said, and what is required, by what I believed. Once done, I can move on. Now, I leave the argument to Sohail. Any furhter discussion (inc by this posting), I think Sohail would be able to handle it.

All the best to you all

Joe

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 09:26am Nov 17, 1997 ET (#803 of 809)

Packing material, Don't Eat!

Whew! Missed a few days there, just caught up!

I will start by conceeding a point: Perhaps the "grant system" is no more, and possibly less, likely to uncover accurate results than economically driven research.

I still question the motus of "pacing." Certainly the ability to deliver marketable products will produce a "pacing" of the introduction of technologies, just as "high definition tv" is being "paced" in the U.S.. What I would question is the concept of purposfull "pacing." When you argue for the "pacing" of the introduction of technological advancement it seems inherant that you would be suggesting some kind of purposfull control mechanism. Without a purposfull controll mechanism there really isn't anything to argue for. If you argue that technology should be paced, and then rely on the market to pace it then it seems as though you are considering the "problem" to be solved, so what are you arguing?

In answere to my own question:

I think that the production of humans, and probably many "animals," for the purpose of "harvesting" organs should be banned as being ethically unsound.

I also think that using cloning as a method of asexual reproduction would be a grave error, not for ethical reasons but as could become a dangerous limit to genetic diversity.

I am, at this time, undecided on whether the barring of federal funds for cloning research is a "bad thing." I had thought that it was, but (Cliff?) has convinced me that industry can adequatly and competently supply the knowledge needed to make informed choices.

Now......

I need to ask, "Why do so many people feel that science and faith are incompatible?"

I understand that you can not accept that God created anything if you do not believe that there is a God, but why do so many people (from both sides of the debate) feel that a belief in God nessesitates a denial of science?

I don't want to get too deep into my own belief system (unles

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:41pm Nov 17, 1997 ET (#804 of 809)

Johari MA: all the complex phenomena (as we understand in today's science) pops out 'just like that'. Have you considered that this is very unlikely.

There is some order in chaotic systems. A super-natural being is not necessary for this order to occur; it could just be part of nature itself. The Great Spot of Jupiter may or may not be created by God, there is no way to tell (unless you subscribe to Tom's proof.)

Noel Yap: I don't feel that any laws are necessary.

Johari MA: we in dreamland?

No, this comment was a reply to how pacing of the technology should be done. Laws are not necessary to do so.

Noel Yap: In an ideal world I would feel this way for any type of human reproduction [cloning].

Cliff Beall: I do not understand the "ideal world" qualification.

In an ideal world, we would have loving and caring parents for all children (maybe we should have Parent Licenses just as we have Professional Engineer Licenses ;)

Cliff Beall: It depends on what you mean by cloning technologies.

I mean if there is large objection to a technology, then society, by definition, is not ready for that technology.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:45pm Nov 17, 1997 ET (#805 of 809)

Cliff Beall: If you mean human cloning to provide a child to a childless couple who will love and provide for that child the same as any other child they might have, I think the objection will be essentially nil.

I disagree, some believe this is tampering too much with what God had intended.

Cliff Beall: We are ready for these good things.

Some of us.

Cliff Beall: But, if you mean human cloning for the purpose of harvesting body organs from the clone for transplant, no amount of "time" and "education" is going to make one bit of difference to me.

I am not talking about individuals, but of society as a whole. Ethics and morality change through time. Of course, we should decide now whether these ethics include harvesting body parts from completely developed clones.

Cliff Beall: That I think I can count on, regardless however else we may disagree, and for that I am glad.

So am I. On the whole, I think society does a good job of balancing technology. It is when society is disregarded that things go out of whack.

Cliff Beall: Would not the larger objects be more likely to capture his interest.

We can't say how God would/should think.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:50pm Nov 17, 1997 ET (#806 of 809)

Cliff Beall: And on a subatomic level, matter appears to be popping in and out of existence all the time.

This is theory. I don't think it's ever been witnessed.

Raoul Lannoy: Some say that human clones are degraded humans.

It is this assertion that may prevent clones from being "respected and have their dignity just like any other human being and perfect twin."

Raoul Lannoy: The fascinating thing about science versus religion is that religion is so deeply involved in our cultures

Science is deeply ingrained in our culture, too. This helps support my statement that Science can be a religion.

Raoul Lannoy: many scientists are still very much anthropocentric (in order to believe a phenomenon they must be able to controle it to proove it therefore they still believe that nothing in the Universe exceeds the power of the human intellect).

They must believe this. If they don't, there is no point in their pursuits.

Sohail Zia: I suppose no one of you is she - unfortunately!

Right, it would be nice to have at least one female perspective. After all, we still don't have artificial wombs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:54pm Nov 17, 1997 ET (#807 of 809)

Johari MA: <Re: Sohail's gender> I don't think this itsy bitsy teeny weenie issue is too important.

I agree. I just like getting it right since English doesn't have a neutral pronoun other than "it" which I consider offensive.

Johari MA: Only genuine/true faith, good assumption and pure love/trust will be accepted by God.

I agree. Discussion is a great way to spread memes; force is not.

Johari MA: I think because that sometimes these 'pain' may be impalatable for some people, they denied that God exist.

There are many other reasons not to accept God's existence.

Johari MA: <Re: nafs and aqal>

Sounds a lot like ego and super-ego (or is it id and ego?)

Cliff Beall: There seems to be some evidence that some tendencies toward unsociable behavior is in the genes. If so, so much for "free will."

I don't believe this. To some extent, our free will could be stronger than our genes. So, one may be born with a tendency towards alcoholism, but with enough training, one can overcome it. The same goes with sexual tendencies. Some tendencies are harder to overcome than others, the real question is, "Should these people make the effort?" For example, only twenty years ago, gays were deemed psychologically ill and that they should make the effort to become more "normal" in their preferences. This is not the case today. Other moral issues may undergo this perception shift.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:57pm Nov 17, 1997 ET (#808 of 809)

Cliff Beall: As a society, I certainly think we have a right to shield ourselves from such behavior, but perhaps the idea of punishment for such behavior is archaic. </blockqutoe>

I agree. I am currently in a discussion on the "Predetors" board about the current/future role of our penal system. Basically, my stand is that we should move towards eliminating criminals. First through correction and rehabilitation. If that does not work, permanent removal (either through capital punishment or life sentences.) Punishment (aka revenge or justice) does nothing help society.

Johari MA: The only difference is, we believers, think that there is another factor within the human itself, which could lead to bad moral conduct. That tendency, if not monitored correctly (by implementing laws), then... the society is going to be affected negatively by (some) of these people [either they are believers or non believers]

I have no problems with laws to help us get on our feet. However, protective laws (and laws in general) should be eliminated once the need is gone (ie society regulates itself in the areas covered by the laws.)

Keith Fosberg: Certainly the ability to deliver marketable products will produce a "pacing" of the introduction of technologies,

This has been what I've been trying to say the last few posts. Originally, I had thought maybe legislation would be necessary. I think otherwise now.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:00pm Nov 17, 1997 ET (#809 of 809)

Keith Fosberg: When you argue for the "pacing" of the introduction of technological advancement it seems inherant that you would be suggesting some kind of purposfull control mechanism.

The only control mechanism I argue for now is financial. If the government stopped funding the R&D, we would have this mechanism, otherwise, we wouldn't.

Keith Fosberg: so what are you arguing?

I apologize for not making this clearer. I argue for no government funding for (at least) human cloning.

Keith Fosberg: I also think that using cloning as a method of asexual reproduction would be a grave error, not for ethical reasons but as could become a dangerous limit to genetic diversity.

I think this, too, but should we legislate such uses?

Keith Fosberg: "Why do so many people feel that science and faith are incompatible?"

The only thing I can think of is the past bad actions of masses under the guise of faith.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 11:08pm Nov 17, 1997 ET (#810 of 812)

Bah, humbug, this board is turning into a love feast. We need for Tom to come back and shake it up.

CB:If so, so much for "free will."

Johari MA: As a believer, free will is real to us...

Noel Yap: I don't believe this...

Okay guys, please note that I said, "If so..." Actually, I believe in free will too--for the most part. But it was a fun statement to make.

Keith Fosberg: I will start by conceeding a point: Perhaps the "grant system" is no more, and possibly less, likely to uncover accurate results than economically driven research.

Well, if your going to do that, I guess I'd better admit up front that I intentionally overstated the point. I expected an argument. Guess I need to be more careful with my overstatements.

Keith Fosberg: I also think that using cloning as a method of asexual reproduction would be a grave error, not for ethical reasons but as could become a dangerous limit to genetic diversity.

Gays will want this option. What do you say to that? Might be interesting when the offspring of a gay person, using this method of reproduction, turns out to not to be gay. Do you believe that?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 11:14pm Nov 17, 1997 ET (#811 of 812)

Keith Fosberg: I need to ask, "Why do so many people feel that science and faith are incompatible?"

Here's my opinion. See if you agree.

Part of it is the differing perspectives of different people. Atheist just naturally assume that men of faith will oppose anything scientific. This is based loosely on historical precedence. What well informed atheist can forget the travails of early men of science such as Galileo? On a moments notice, if not sooner, they can recite those travails as an example of the unyielding resistance by men of faith to scientific fact. But men of faith are often more clever than the atheist gives him credit for being. In the face of overwhelming evidence, men of the Christian and Jewish faiths, for example, can easily re-interpret the Biblical scripture about the "four corners of the earth" to mean the four directions: north, south, east and west, if it is a problem otherwise.

In some respects it is real. For example, men of faith are more than a bit suspicious of science when it comes to the theory of evolution. First, the evidence for evolution, while strong, is not overwhelming. The theory has gaps. Scientist can't agree on the details of much of it, anyway, particularly with respect to human evolution. I understand the Catholic Church has now accepted evolution (at least to some extent--better be careful here), but the idea definitely goes against the grain for most men of faith.

The creation story is such a major part of most religions. Can men of faith say that God used evolution as the mechanism to cause man to come into existence when their (Book of faith) clearly states that God formed man in God's own image from the dust of the earth (or something similar)?

However, for the most part, usually with the exception of evolution--particularly human evolution, men of faith are about as modern in their approach to science and things scientific as anybody.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 11:19pm Nov 17, 1997 ET (#812 of 812)

Noel Yap: I mean if there is large objection to a technology, then society, by definition, is not ready for that technology.

I don't think there is a significant objection to the technology, itself. Only objections to immoral and unethical applications of the technology. We have defined most of them.

Noel Yap: I disagree, some believe this is tampering too much with what God had intended.

I don't hear the objection. Maybe I need to open my ears. But I don't hear it.

Noel Yap: We can't say how God would/should think.

If we accept the evidence from the Bible, God acts remarkably similar to the way people act. For example, he gets mad and does things he didn't intend to do and/or things he is sorry he did and has to repent. Reminds me of me. (I think the assumption I made is probably a pretty good one.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kurt Schoedel - 02:35am Nov 18, 1997 ET (#813 of 815)

I have never understood why religious belief and evolution are incompatible with each other. One can argue that god caused the big bang and that the universe has evolved ever since. I see no rational basis for contradiction here. Science and religion are no longer incompatible. There was a book written about 10 years ago called The Anthropic Cosmological Principle that effectively showed how the prospect of universal resurrection (reanimation) and immortality can be derived based on the current (and assumed) known laws of physics. Also, Hans Morevec's Mind Children also proposes similar arguments. One must remember that the whole purpose of faith and religion is to ensure the possibility of eternal life and that "it will all be cool in the end". If this is the same purpose of science and technology, then our goals are one and the same. I see no purpose of this eclistical argument in this board. We are not in the god business, we're in the immortality business.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 07:38am Nov 18, 1997 ET (#814 of 815)

Cliff Beall: Can men of faith say that God used evolution as the mechanism to cause man to come into existence when their (Book of faith) clearly states that God formed man in God\222s own image from the dust of the earth (or something similar)?

Yes. In no way does this book say how this formation was done. In fact, some theories say that life had to have started on land (not in the oceans). Once this occurred, evolution progressed creating man.

Cliff Beall: I don\222t think there is a significant objection to the technology, itself.

I think there is. Cloning is too close to creating life for some people. Given time, education, and conditioning, these objections will die down just as they have in the past.

Cliff Beall: I don\222t hear the objection. Maybe I need to open my ears. But I don\222t hear it.

These people are (obviously) not on this board. I have personally spoken to some of them.

Noel Yap: We can't say how God would/should think.

Cliff Beall: If we accept the evidence from the Bible, God acts remarkably similar to the way people act.

I should've qualified my statement. If man created God, then, yes, we state how God is. If it's the other way around, we cannot.

I guess any personality we assign to God points to the fact that we created God since this clearly goes against my idea that God would be so "above" us that we wouldn't be able even to think to how He would be.

Kurt Schoedel: We are not in the god business, we're in the immortality business.

Immortality is part of God's turf.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 09:38am Nov 18, 1997 ET (#815 of 815)

Packing material, Don't Eat!

The potential to support asexual reproduction opens an interesting can of worms. It is, in a way, the ultimate expression of incest. I am not sure that legislation is needed, but I think we can examine the issue in its genetic similarity to the incest problem.

Social prohibitions of incest existed in most cultures long prior to any understanding of genectics. These prohibitions were based on two major factors:

1. Intrafamily marriages did not accumulate wealth or political influence for the tribe.

2. The offspring of close family pairings were quite often observably lacking.

I really am at a loss to decide how to deal with the potential for asexual reproduction. It is very easy to see that even in the face of sure knowledge of the dangers of limiting genetic diversity people will desire this for personal vanity and nepotistic purposes, probably perceiving the potential dangers as "someone else's problem" since they are soo far removed.

Those wishing for offspring without needing a partner of the opposite gender might be enticed away from this option by making technologies available that would enable them to have mixed parentage children with thier spouses. This is, admittedly, rather blue sky at this point, but it does seem to be a potential indicated by this area of technology.

Bottom line is that it will happen. Even if parental replicant cloning is banned there will be those with the resources to do so without respect to the law.

I am now firmly blase` about the availability of federal funding for research. My main concern was that application would outpace knowledge, but, with the miriad of desired and economically viable applications for biotechnologies in general and the technologies that allow cloning in specific, I am growing more convinced that few, if any, avenues of research will be overlooked by the commertially backed scientific community.

I don't really think that the human ne

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 09:19pm Nov 18, 1997 ET (#816 of 817)

Kurt, I basically agree with you. But it is easy for me to say that God may have caused the Big Bang, and all that followed from it, to come into existence. If I were to believe in God, that is the kind of God that I would want to believe in, the kind of God that Noel described when he said: "this clearly goes against my idea that God would be so "above" us that we wouldn't be able even to think...how He would be."

But that is not the kind of God described in the ancient scriptures of the various major religions. The kind of God described in those scriptures is a "personal God" who has a personality much like the people who worship him. Most people who believe in God believe in a "personal God" that they can "know," who responds to their prayers and really cares about them. Kurt, I think it should not be too difficult for a man of your intellect, and also, your's, Noel, to understand why the concept of God you and I might prefer, is not satisfying to these people. And that is the problem with evolution for these people.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kurt Schoedel - 10:09pm Nov 18, 1997 ET (#817 of 817)

The concept of a "personal god" is the literary concept called personification. I personally have never felt the need for this personification process. What Frank Tippler and Hans Morevec have demonstrated in thier books is that the possiblility of universal ressurection and infinite life are not incompatible with the currently known laws of physics. This, in turn, makes the belief in a "personal god" (and the accompanying monopoly-authoritarian BS) an unnecessary prerequisite for the possibility of immortality. My comment about being in the immortality business as apposed to the god business is that the purpose of religion has been to offer the promise of immortality in return for surrendering your personal sovereignty to the religion. I see this as no longer necessary. Besides, why would one beleive in a god that has the emotional maturity of a typical spoiled 12-year old child. One would figure that a being advanced enough to be called god would be morally too advanced for such childish emotions as jealousy and anger.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:16am Nov 19, 1997 ET (#818 of 820)

I understand where you are coming from, Kurt. What you say about not having a need for a personification process makes sense to me. Neither do I. I am personally not into immortality, but if that is your thing, I have no problem with that either. But you say you have never understood why religious belief and evolution are incompatible with each other.

My point is this:

1. Most people who hold religious beliefs believe in a personal God, regardless whether you approve, or not.

2. For people who believe in a personal God, the replacement of creation with evolution is not satisfying. As a result, they typically reject evolution, and insist on something like "scientific creation" which is not scientific. Thus, in this case, religion and science are at odds.

3. However, although, with respect to this one particular issue, religion and science are at odds, this issue is an exception. For most religious people, faith and science are not otherwise incompatible.

Therefore, we should not be surprised when religious people take a relatively modern and reasonable approach to something like cloning.

I probably ought to mention that you may describe emotions such as jealousy and anger as "childish" if you wish. But these are emotions I sometimes feel. And, sometimes, to be perfectly frank, I feel fully justified in feeling those emotions. In times like those, I don't consider those emotions childish. I consider those emotions human. I hope you are not telling me that you have not felt those emotions since your thirteenth birthday.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike Dawson - 11:46am Nov 19, 1997 ET (#819 of 820)

Cloning is yet another example of how mankind will further procreate and pollute this beautiful plant with human kind. However before we embark on our own gene pool mixing to order 'man made people' I think that we should be looking at how to reduce or control the human population so that a quality of life for all is available, 'quality not quantity' . Spare parts for surgery however is a more acceptable idea, even if it comes at a price, 'all other services do'. Replication of ones own body parts for replacement seems reasonable enough.

However some people may say that this is not fair because not everyone will have the ability to pay for these services, 'I say, not everyone can afford Rolls Royce cars but many drive them'. If their is a market then people will buy the product even if it is illegal, when has outlawing a product ever stopped people from doing what they really want to do 'drugs, prohibition, prostitution' all it does is increase the price and the quality of the service is compromised as a result. This is only the start of a very big business venture.... Where morality and money don't mix.

Now thats off my chest ....

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:33pm Nov 19, 1997 ET (#820 of 820)

Kurt Schoedel: I see this as no longer necessary.

More and more areas covered by traditional religion are being taken over by science. Belief systems have a life cycle like anything else (although their life spans stretch millenia.) The one constant is that when one dies, another takes over.

Kurt Schoedel: Besides, why would one beleive in a god that has the emotional maturity of a typical spoiled 12-year old child.

This is not the God that people believe in today.

Cliff Beall - 01:16am Nov 19, 1997 ET (#818 of 818)

Cliff Beall: What [Kurt] say[s] about not having a need for a personification process makes sense to me.

Me, too.

Cliff Beall: we should not be surprised when religious people take a relatively modern and reasonable approach to something like cloning.

I disagree. I can easily see how some people would object for the same reason they objected to artificial insemination -- we are performing more and more what is supposed to be God's duties.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 11:47pm Nov 19, 1997 ET (#821 of 821)

Noel, I am sure you can find people, religious, or otherwise, who will object to almost anything. But if you want examples of religious people, who believe in a personal God, who object strenuously to evolution, but who otherwise readily accept the benefits of science, look no further that this board. Some examples follow:

Cathy Davis said, "It's not that I don't approve of cloning--- I still think its not any worse than plant-grafting (why aren't people having a fit about creating 'new' breeds of plants, after all God didn't originally make them either ?)"

In response to my remark that human cloning for the purpose of supplying body parts for transplant should be banned...forever, but that human cloning should be permitted for people who desire a child by this method, provided it is their intention to love and care for the child as they would any other child, Sohail Zia, said, "AGREED. Cliff, I wanted to post these words, but you did earlier."

Also, in response to my assertion that the threat to the human dignity of clones has not come from my religious friends, but instead appears to come mainly from the other side," Johari MA said, "Thnks for noting that some religious people are not totally against cloning, there are good sides of this technology."

I must concede that AJR said, "These scientists are messing with stuff they shouldn't be messing with! Why can't people just leave nature alone, and let God do his job???"

I just think there are a lot more Cathys, Sohails and Joes than there are AJRs.

I guess you disagree, however, so after your retort to this--should you decide to make it-- I think we can let it drop.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kurt Schoedel - 01:00am Nov 20, 1997 ET (#822 of 831)

You're right. Jealousy and anger are not childish emotions but are a part of being human. I often get angry myself. However, jealousy is not really a useful emotion and anger is useful if channeled into creative activity. My comment was that a god is supposed to be much more advanced than any human being and, therefor, a certain "weeding-out" process of emotional states should have occured in the formation of a god. Presummably, a god is as far beyond from humans as humans are from single-celled organisms. Viewed from this context, it seems useless to ascribe human emotions to a god.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 07:04am Nov 20, 1997 ET (#823 of 831)

Cliff Beall: I guess you disagree, however, so after your retort to this--should you decide to make it-- I think we can let it drop.

I've already said that the ones that object to this technology are so behind the tech curve that they wouldn't normally be surfing the web, much less posting on this board. With that repeated, and no new information added, I agree that we disagree.

Kurt Schoedel: a god is as far beyond from humans as humans are from single-celled organisms.

or more.

Kurt Schoedel: Viewed from this context, it seems useless to ascribe human emotions to a god.

I think we all agree with this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sohail Zia - 02:53pm Nov 20, 1997 ET (#824 of 831)

With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source

Cliff Beall - 07:25pm Nov 15, 1997 ET (#787) First, my apologies to Sohail. For some reason, Sohail, I took you to be a Christian.

Please don't mind, there are many concepts basic and common to Jews, Christian and Muslims.

It is human nature to wonder about things. Given the evidence available, it is not surprising that ancient man decided it must have been created. But now we find that that the universe is much larger than it was thought to be by ancient man, almost impossibly large.In terms of the now known size of the universe, the earth is incredibly small. To a God capable of creating this incredibly large universe, the earth must seem the size of an atom. How could the earth, and people on the earth, be important to such an entity. Would not the larger objects be more likely to capture his interest.

You are thinking with the limitations of your mind and not of Creator, even the world of electron microscope can not open your mind to admire the micro creations and its Creator; for an insect the limitation of imagination could be from mills to yards but not for humans. Can the very insect claim that humans cannot measure microns to light years.

Furthermore, we now find that everything on earth, as well as everything in the larger universe, is in a state of evolution.

Please review Sohail Zia 11/14/97 3:57pm and remember that the creations are passing through evolution and not the Creator.

My opinion? If I had to guess, I would guess that our entire universe popped into existence as a result of a random fluctuation, in a still larger universe (outside our universe). But I do not know this to be the case.And from where all the matter and energy came in the first place? For all I know, it may, somehow, involve a creator after all. If so, I do not believe that I need fear the wrath of such a creator.

Why people always think only of the wrath of Creator. Is putting us to existence a wrath. The evidence is

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:08pm Nov 20, 1997 ET (#825 of 831)

Sohail Zia: And from where all the matter and energy came in the first place?

My guess is that the universe has always been. IOW, it has no definite beginning.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sohail Zia - 03:23pm Nov 20, 1997 ET (#826 of 831)

With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source

<rest of Sohail Zia 11/20/97 2:53pm > The evidence is in the rock, and it is in the DNA. There is no similar evidence for creation (although I do not disallow the possibility of creation).

If a DNA can be triggered once for our existence, then it can happen again for the day of justice.

< previous message Sohail Zia 11/16/97 11:21am >

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 03:46pm Nov 20, 1997 ET (#827 of 831)

"My guess is that the universe has always been. IOW, it has no definite beginning." - Noel Yap in a reply to Sohail Zia about the source of matter and energy.

Sorry to butt in on a metaphysical debate (in which I sorely lack any credentials), but doesn't this just beg the question? I can't quite wrap my cranium around "always" so I need an explanation on this one. WHERE DID IT COME FROM BEFORE..."ALWAYS?"

Besides, this flies in the face of current cosmological convention which holds to a Big Bang 10 to 20 billion years ago (depending on Hubble's constant). Which is itself the best explanation for measured galactic motion and background radiation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:33pm Nov 20, 1997 ET (#828 of 831)

M.A.DeLuca: WHERE DID IT COME FROM BEFORE..."ALWAYS?"

There is no "before always" just like there really is no definite end to space. For those of you who think there are, what's outside space? What'll happen if you move past the edge of space?

M.A.DeLuca: this flies in the face of current cosmological convention which holds to a Big Bang 10 to 20 billion years ago

Any support for the Big Bang is fuzzy. IOW, if you count in experimental error, you really can't say either way whether the Big Bang occurred or not.

Now, you can say that everything around us is speeding away from each other (sort of -- sometimes, galaxies collide, which doesn't make sense if the universe started out homogenous.) Well, saying that the Big Bang didn't create the Universe is different from saying that a big bang didn't happen. This big bang may have created our local surroundings and may account for the movement of objects around us, but it doesn't account for everything else.

As far as we've seen, and this is the thing that points to the fact that a Big Bang didn't create the universe, there are huge, complex structures out there that couldn't have formed in the 10-20 billions years that the universe has supposedly existed.

Furthermore, astro-physicists keep patching up the theory to reflect what we do see. This sounds a lot like the Ptolemaic (?) solar system model which used circles instead of ellipses. The more accurate you wanted to make planetary predictions, the more complicated the model got. Would we believe any other theories that undergo so much kludging? What if Einstein kept adding cosmological constants to make his theory fit? There's just too much wrong with the Big Bang Theory for me to believe it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:34pm Nov 20, 1997 ET (#829 of 831)

Sorry to be so long-winded about my beliefs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 07:32pm Nov 20, 1997 ET (#830 of 831)

"Sorry to be so long-winded about my beliefs." - Noel Yap

No problem, and I'd love to debate you on cosmology, but I suspect we're already dangerously off topic, so lets save it until CNN has a message board a little closer on, shall we?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 08:39pm Nov 20, 1997 ET (#831 of 831)

Well, one thing leads to another and before you know what-- M.A., you are absolutely right. Course, on the other hand, CNN really isn't all that strict sometimes. My rule is, if it is fun, do it, at least for a while. Cheers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 11:30pm Nov 20, 1997 ET (#832 of 832)

Sohail Zia: Why people always think only of the wrath of Creator.

Sohail, it was you who said: "Logically speaking there could be two possibilities either there is no Creator, no life after death (i.e. the eternal life) and no Day of Justice or the second possibility that we have a Creator, there is going to be a Day of Justice and the eternal life. With the first possibility I do not loose and you do not loose. But for the second possibility who could be the logical looser."

It sounds to me as if you think I may have something to fear on the "Day of Justice." I have assumed that you were referring to the wrath of God, which I assume you believe may be directed at me on that day, presumably for my failure to worship God in the fashion you believe--nevermind my failure to acknowledge the existence of God.

As for me, I am in no way fearful of the wrath of God. First, as I have previously noted, I tend not be believe in God. If God does not exist, I obviously need not fear the wrath of God, but suppose God does exists. If God does exist, I am confident that he is cognizant of my nature to need hard evidence before admitting belief. Furthermore, if God is my creator, he must have given me that nature. Surely, I say, if God wanted me to believe in him, he would not have given me the nature to insist upon hard evidence, and then not supply me with it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sohail Zia - 12:58am Nov 21, 1997 ET (#833 of 837)

With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source

Cliff Beall - 04:23pm Nov 15, 1997 ET (#786) to Noel Yap, But, if you mean human cloning for the purpose of harvesting body organs from the clone for transplant, no amount of "time" and "education" is going to make one bit of difference to me. I trust the same is true for society in general. There is one thing of which I am certain: I can count on Sohail and Johari to hold steadfast in their opposition to this. That I think I can count on, regardless however else we may disagree, and for that I am glad.

Yes

Cliff Beall - 11:07pm Nov 14, 1997 ET (#775) For example, I doubt if the author believed that most of the stars he saw were bigger than the sun, and that the sun was bigger than the earth, or that the earth was round and revolved around the sun. If you have evidence otherwise, please specify. I have a English translation of the Koran, and can look it up to confirm if you specify the name of the book as well as the chapter and verse.

I expected Johary to respond with Koran Part 23: Chapter 36 (Yasin): Verse 37 to 40 - "It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit". The concept of individual terrestrial orbits might be meaning less for a man 1400 years ago, but for us it is simple and fits the present reality, on the other hand some other concepts of Koran e.g. of social life may seem strange and difficult for us to understand. To some it becomes coherence and satisfaction with the internal ROM (insight) of man and the strength of faith, But for you with pardon, I doubt it will serve any purpose.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 12:24pm Nov 21, 1997 ET (#834 of 837)

Packing material, Don't Eat!

Current theory holds that the universe existed as a "Time Like" singularity. There is no before as expansionistic time is a function of the "Big Bang."

Also, space is not infinitly vast, just very vast. Space/time has no edge, it actually warps back on itself as a three dimensional manifold that appears as if it is expressed within a four dimensional manifold.

There were numerous instabilities in the infant universe that were impinged upon the emerging structure durring the early "rapid expansion" phase. This is why the universe is not a uniformly thin quantum gas.

If the universe is one itteration of an infinite cycle involving the states of expansion, colapse and stasis then this peculiar "happenstance" of physical law and "random" events that has produced a "livible" universe could occur through chance without stretching credibility. If, on the other hand, this universe is the only itteration then I think that the existance of a creator is strongly indicated as an omnipotent creator seems more likely than a random pattern as the "author" of the universe. Unfortunatly we have no way of determining if this is the sole itteration of the universe!

Back on topic, does anyone have any comment on my last message?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sohail Zia - 02:49pm Nov 21, 1997 ET (#835 of 837)

With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source

Cliff Beall - 07:25pm Nov 15, 1997 ET (#787) Given the evidence available, it is not surprising that ancient man decided it must have been created. And something created presupposes a creator.

The ancient man was more wise and realistic.

To a God capable of creating this incredibly large universe, the earth must seem the size of an atom. How could the earth, and people on the earth, be important to such an entity. Would not the larger objects be more likely to capture his interest.

God is God; not man.

For all I know, it may, somehow, involve a creator after all.

How nice of you to admit; although for a fraction of a second, but still! as I waited this moment for a long long time.

Johari MA - 01:09pm Nov 16, 1997 ET (#791) Sohail didn't correct me (my earlier mails to 'her'),

How am I suppose to know that you think me as she, when you never expressed the required gesture by a man. Cliff, have you seen my wink. The issue here is NOT gender, why are people so sensitive about that?

Because I want to remain he. Never mind, thanks God, still I am Sohail; at least!

Noel Yap - 03:41pm Nov 17, 1997 ET (#804) The Great Spot of Jupiter may or may not be created by God, there is no way to tell (unless you subscribe to Tom's proof.)

We have not created ourselves as we are still in the process of discovering ourselves, you may say that the laws of nature (or the process of evolution) have created us (provided you believe that we really exist or at least the 'thought' that we exist is real and not illusion or at least the illusion is the reality), then Who created these laws of evolution i.e. of nature?

Cliff Beall: Would not the larger objects be more likely to capture his interest.

Noel Yap: We can't say how God would/should think.

Yes, here you are right, I think.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:35pm Nov 21, 1997 ET (#836 of 837)

Keith Fosberg: space is not infinitly vast, just very vast.

Although some hypotheses say this, we don't know it for sure.

Keith Fosberg: There were numerous instabilities in the infant universe that were impinged upon the emerging structure durring the early "rapid expansion" phase.

How did these instabilities come about in a completely homogeneous space?

Keith Fosberg: This is why the universe is not a uniformly thin quantum gas.

Even assuming there were minute differences, they wouldn't have been enough to cause the enormous structures we see today given the (maximum) 20 billion years according to the theory.

The structures I speak of span (if I remember) over 11 billion light years across. Our growing technologies allow us to see further and further, thereby, "making" these objects even larger. If we actually do see structures 20 billion light years across, it would mean that the Earth has to be the center of the universe. This fact would be so unlikely that it would lend a lot of credence to the Bible.

Keith Fosberg: If the universe is one itteration of an infinite cycle

If this were so, then the Big Bang did not create the universe, but instead, the big bangs are part of the universe's life cycle.

Cliff Beall: For all I know, it may, somehow, involve a creator after all.

Sohail Zia: How nice of you to admit; although for a fraction of a second, but still! as I waited this moment for a long long time.

The difference between people like Sohail, Johari, and Tom and people like Cliff and me is that the former group are positive that they are right, while the latter leaves room for doubts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:36pm Nov 21, 1997 ET (#837 of 837)

Johari MA: Who created these laws of evolution i.e. of nature?

Nothing need have created the laws. If the laws didn't work out, we wouldn't be here discussing them (anthropocentric POV.) Some theories say that there are an infinite combination of possible laws. Very few of these would sustain a livable universe. Given that time is meaningless when talking about the creation of a universe, eventually ours would have come about.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:12am Nov 22, 1997 ET (#838 of 841)

Sohail Zia: I expected Johary to respond with Koran Part 23: Chapter 36 (Yasin): Verse 37 to 40 - "It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit". The concept of individual terrestrial orbits might be meaning less for a man 1400 years ago, but for us it is simple and fits the present reality...

Sohail, the passage you quote seems remarkable in one respect. The word "orbit" has a relatively modern connotation. I did look up the passage in my copy of the Koran. Although it contains slightly different words, it too contains the word "orbit." I therefore must assume that the original Arabic word had a meaning similar to the meaning of the modern English word "orbit." (This is, of course, far superior to other, more ancient scriptures--for example, the Book of Enoch, Chapter LXXII which explains, by the authority of Uriel, that the sun and the moon, after setting in the appropriate western portal--one of six depending on the season--returns through the north, driven by the wind, to get back to the east in order to rise through the appropriate eastern portal the next morning.)

However, the passage you quote also clearly indicates that the sun, as well as the moon, orbits the earth, which is not true. That the sun (in its orbit around the earth) does not overtake the moon (in its orbit around the earth) is an observation we would expect from ancient man.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:16am Nov 22, 1997 ET (#839 of 841)

Keith Fosberg: Also, space is not infinitly vast, just very vast. Space/time has no edge, it actually warps back on itself as a three dimensional manifold that appears as if it is expressed within a four dimensional manifold.

Keith, the word "manifold" in this context puzzles me. Also, the concept of the universe warping back onto itself in three dimensions escapes me. Why insist on only three dimension. Why not assume the universe exists as it appears to exist, in at least four spatial dimensions? In other words, assuming the universe is positively curved, if we could see far enough, we could see the backs of our heads (or actually where the backs of our heads will eventually be located--since in looking out into space, we are also looking back in time, to a time before we existed).

Keith Fosberg: Back on topic, does anyone have any comment on my last message?

Keith, there are a number of things about your recent posts, including this one, that can be described as remarkable. However, they are remarkable mainly in the contrast with your earlier posts. It is clear that you have recently given these matters a great deal of thought, and there has obviously been a rather dramatic shift in your emphasis. Originally, your stance was mainly one of humorously observing the controversy: ("This subject can, will and has been beaten to a pulp," and, "If the clone has no head you won't have much luck with eyes and ears!")

Later, you got more involved, but attempted to remain even handed: ("People have to realize that knowledge is nuetral, it is application that is good or evil," and, "It seems reasonable to set ethical limits to a potential technology's application, but it does not seem ethical to restrict research because the potential for unethical application exists.")

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:18am Nov 22, 1997 ET (#840 of 841)

However, your last three or four posts reveal a much deeper involvement with the real issues, and, as a result, you have began to have second and third thoughts. Also, at the same time, you have decided to cut the BS and be true to yourself. You have identified yourself as an individual who believes in God, and one who has significant moral scruples with respect to this technology. I think that is good.

However, I disagree with most of your post. Your comparison of asexual reproduction with incest does not make sense to me. I discount your first reason (economic) for the prohibition of incest, and point out that in ancient times, royal families sometime practiced incest as a method of keeping the wealth and power within the family. However, it turned out that this practice revealed a significant physical and mental health risk. Ancient man was no fool. He saw what he saw, and it didn't take him long to figure out what caused it. Since asexual reproduction appears to present no such health risk, I disagree with your assertion and your conclusion.

Also, while I admit a significant danger of limiting genetic diversity with respect to animal cloning, in the way animal husbandry is practiced, I fail to see a significant danger with respect to human cloning.

With respect to the possibility of offering gays a mixed parentage children alternative to cloning, gays already have that (artificial insemination using an appropriate donor or surrogate). Okay, maybe it is not quite the same, but the "blue sky" to which you referred will not happen without government funding; the commercial application is too limited. (This is an example of an avenue of research that will be overlooked by the commercially backed scientific community. But I am certainly not interested in contributing my tax dollars to such a cause.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:20am Nov 22, 1997 ET (#841 of 841)

Sohail Zia: How nice of you to admit; although for a fraction of a second, but still! as I waited this moment for a long long time.

Sohail, you can not claim that I hid my bias from you. I have repeatedly identified myself as an agnostic. And, anyway, you did not wait that long. I have repeatedly mentioned that I allow for the possibility of the existence of God.

Noel Yap: Even assuming there were minute differences, they wouldn't have been enough to cause the enormous structures we see today given the (maximum) 20 billion years according to the theory.

Well the enormous structures are there--or, at least were there at one time. Who knows what they have evolved into in the past 10-20 billion years. Maybe the theory is wrong. But of course, that is your argument.

Noel Yap: The difference between people like Sohail, Johari, and Tom and people like Cliff and me is that the former group are positive that they are right, while the latter leaves room for doubts.

How do you account for Keith. He believes in God, but has his doubts about cloning. (Just joking Keith. Didn't mean any harm.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 05:29pm Nov 22, 1997 ET (#842 of 842)

Cliff,

I have to remind you that you are interpreting the verse incorrectly; There are grammatical rules for each language, and the translation(s) may not rule out the exact meaning; Further, there is no such thing as literal translation. And remember, the translator is not (simultaneously) a scientist and an Arabic linguistic-ian, I have got the answer for the above argument, but we'll see what Sohail wants to say, first.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 09:48pm Nov 22, 1997 ET (#843 of 843)

Joe,

I think your comments regarding literal translations are valid. I would note the following: The English translation that Sohail cited was: "It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit." The English translation of my copy gives it as: "The sun is not allowed to overtake the moon, nor does the night outpace the day. Each in its own orbit runs." It appears to me that these two translations conform to each other quite well in their meaning. I therefore assume that they both conform reasonably well to the original Arabic in its meaning. I therefore accept the meaning of these verses as given by the two translations.

I will point out that my challenge to you was to show me a 1400 year old scripture which indicated that most of the stars are bigger than the sun, and that the sun is bigger than the earth, or that the earth is round and revolves around (or orbits) the sun. However, I would accept other phenomenon of a similar nature, such as that the earth rotates on its axis--in other words, something we know to be true, but that would not be apparent to an intelligent observer in that time frame.

However, I do not believe these verses do that. Instead, it appears to me that they merely describe the apparent motion of the sun and the moon with respect to the earth: something which I would expect any intelligent observer from that time period to notice and report. But I await each of your explanations, and I will listen to both.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sohail Zia - 01:47pm Nov 23, 1997 ET (#844 of 850)

With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source

Cliff Beall - 05:56pm Nov 16, 1997 ET (#796) I disagree, Raoul. I think, in general, the threat to the human dignity of clones has not come from my religious friends. The threat appears to come mainly from the other side.

Thanks on behalf of the believers.

Cliff Beall - 06:04pm Nov 16, 1997 ET (#799) There seems to be some evidence that some tendencies toward unsociable behavior is in the genes. If so, so much for "free will." As a society, I certainly think we have a right to shield ourselves from such behavior, but perhaps the idea of punishment for such behavior is archaic.

Johari MA - 06:04am Nov 17, 1997 ET (#801) This is still preliminary. My belief system also agreed, to a certain extent, the 'seed' from the 'good' people, will usually give 'good' human.

If unsociable behavior comes from genes, then religious ones should not be afraid of the day of justice (atheists are already free from such worries) also in this world the practice of punishment should be ceased. All that we have to do is, to capture the criminals by a suitable method, bring him/her to the workshop, do some brain repairing, alignment and tuning, and there comes again our robot, fully overhauled, certified ISO9000, UL etc. etc; however we have to remember it is a robot, not a hu-man. Johari: but we strongly maintain that, babies are borned sinless and its up to the parents to guide them..... As a believer, free will is real to us, Right

Keith Fosberg - 09:26am Nov 17, 1997 ET (#803) but why do so many people (from both sides of the debate) feel that a belief in God nessesitates a denial of science?

Being a believer in God, it is also strange to me, because my belief system asks to explore nature, as the wonders of nature lead us to the Glory of our Creator.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 05:59pm Nov 23, 1997 ET (#845 of 850)

Sohail Zia 11/23/97 1:47pm

If unsociable behavior comes from genes, then religious ones should...........remember it is a robot, not a hu-man.

I do not personally believe that social behaviour are 100.00% under the influence of our genes. It is scientifically accepted that, complex traits are not under the (total) control of genes. The environment also play its role : proper education/guidance/good example is the real source for good/moral behaviour. Therefore, free will still exists, for the parents and the childrens, to play their roles appropriately, for their own sake.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 06:00pm Nov 23, 1997 ET (#846 of 850)

Cliff,

Pls note that, I have got to do a bit of explanation (due to my earlier 'story'), for some query unanswered : persofinication of God, and 'God that needs love'. That will be dealt later.

As a reminder, verse 51:47 and 21:30 should be read together. Verse 21:30 describe in a metaphoric manner, about Big Bang. Verse 51:47 quoted expansion of the universe. I see no reason for verse 51:47 to need any other support, as the fact is straightforward, simple and clear enough.

I think your comments regarding literal translations are valid. I would note the following: The English translation that Sohail cited was: "It is not for the sun ........... these verses as given by the two translations.

The problem with translators, when they are not familiar with scientific facts, they put the word unappropriately, that may cause different translations, which may lead to different conclusions..

In that case, you are generally looking for an encyclopaedia, which obviously, Koran is not. There is, in fact one verse, that indirectly say 'earth is round', though. See at the end of this msg.

However, I would accept other phenomenon of a similar nature, such as that the earth rotates on its axis--in other words, something we know to be true, but that would not be apparent to an intelligent observer in that time frame. However, I do not believe these ver

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 06:01pm Nov 23, 1997 ET (#847 of 850)

Verse 36:37-40 in short, present the word 'orbit'. It did not say "the sun is orbiting earth" or "the moon is orbiting earth", though. The verb 'yasbahuna'(35:40) in the Arabic language, means 'a movement with self-propelled motion' of the body in question. If it takes place in the water, it is to swim; it is to move by the action of one's own legs' if it takes place on land; Therefore, for celestial body, it could either be rotating (on axis) or orbiting or both. Both are valid. The sun is rotating and orbiting (the center of Milky Way). The moon is also rotating and orbiting (earth). Thus, the verse did mention about the concepts of 'rotation' dan 'orbit' (moon/sun), though it didn't specify it in detail. You have to refer to Arabic language, to know the meaning of the verb 'yasbahuna'

Instead, it appears to me that they merely describe the apparent motion of the sun and the moon with respect to the earth: something which I would expect any intelligent observer from that time period to notice and report.

That is your perception. What I would expect, from an ancient man, is his (conspicious) personal bias. A personal bias would make one jump to conclusion, prematurely. But, I did not see him doing that on verse 36:38 and 36:40. He did not (deliberately) say that the sun is orbiting earth . On verse 36:38

And the sun runs his course for a period determined for him: that is the decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might the All-Knowing.

..... and he repeated that the sun have its own orbit/rotation, on verse 36:40 without mentioning the word earth. So, where is his personal bias? Therefore, that doubt should give us a question about the critical nature of the verses

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 06:01pm Nov 23, 1997 ET (#848 of 850)

For verse 36:38, to my perception... "The sun runs his course" : rotating and orbiting center of milky way..., "for a period determined" : over 200 million yrs for 1 complete orbit. I don't know whether he knows what he is writing, at that time, as (I believe) he received it from God.

Right, I'll give you some homework...

(15:22) "We sent forth the winds that fecundate."

How did 'the author' knows, at that old age, winds could fertilize (wind pollination)?

(39:6).......He makes you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness....

During gestation, there are 3 stages, as we know : first, 2nd and 3rd trimester. It sounds metaphoric, but the number of stages are correct. This verse should be read with 23:12-14 and 71:13-14. Verse 71:13-14 and 21:30 could also carry the meaning for the 'creation of man' and all other living things on this planet.

(34:3) "He is aware of an atom's weight in the heavens and on the earth, and even anything smaller than that . . ."

Atomism. The Greek philosopher Democritus (460-361 BC) advanced the theory that matter was composed of tiny,

indivisible particles called Atoms. Modern science has discovered that there is the Atom, but that Atom is divisible.

(75:3-4) "Does mankind think that We cannot assemble his bones? Nay, We are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers."

No two finger prints are alike. This verse tells of both God's knowledge and ability to resurrect us even to the most unique and individual part: our fingers. So, the 'ancient man' knows that finger prints are unique at that time?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 06:03pm Nov 23, 1997 ET (#849 of 850)

(39:5)"He coils the night upon the day and He coils the day upon the night."

To coil or to wind is the translation of the Arabic verb kawwarra. The original meaning of the verb is to coil a turban around the head. The process of perpetual coiling, including the interpenetration of one sector by another is expressed in the Qur'an just as if the concept of the Earth's roundness had already been conceived at the time, which is clearly not the case. Thus, you have to refer to Arabic language, for the whole verse and note the word kawwara for confirmation.

and for further info, you can buy these two books : "The Bible, The Qur'an and Modern Science" and "What is the origin of Man" [both by Dr. Maurice Bucaille]

geee... i think u should ask cnn for a 'religion' topic at 'fringe' board.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 06:07pm Nov 23, 1997 ET (#850 of 850)

sorry there is a correction (red) for Johari MA 11/23/97 6:01pm

The verb 'yasbahuna'(36:40) in the Arabic language, means 'a movement with self-propelled motion' of the body in question...........

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 10:29pm Nov 23, 1997 ET (#851 of 853)

Sohail Zia: All that we have to do is, to capture the criminals by a suitable method, bring him/her to the workshop, do some brain repairing, alignment and tuning, and there comes again our robot, fully overhauled, certified ISO9000, UL etc. etc...

Sohail, I think you are playing with me. I have since admitted that I was indulging in overstatement, and mainly just having fun, when I made the statement that prompted this response. But I do have a problem with it. I tend also to believe in free will. However, I can not be certain if belief in free will is reliable. I mean, how can I know, even when I think I am exercising free will, that I am really exercising it. Tom once made an argument about this, presenting both sides. His conclusion was that free will was the most logical choice. However, as I recall, he presented the other side quite well also, and I was probably less convinced of free will at the conclusion of his argument than I was before.

Johari MA: As a reminder, verse 51:47 and 21:30 should be read together. Verse 21:30 describe in a metaphoric manner, about Big Bang. Verse 51:47 quoted expansion of the universe. I see no reason for verse 51:47 to need any other support, as the fact is straightforward, simple and clear enough.

According to my translation, 51:47 says: We built the heaven with Our might, giving it a great expanse, and stretched the earth beneath it." This reminds me of the multi-tier universe typically conceptualized by man during that period of time. With regard to 21:30, I think it is stretching things a bit to come up with the big bang (assuming the theory of the big bang is correct).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 10:35pm Nov 23, 1997 ET (#852 of 853)

Johari MA: In that case, you are generally looking for an encyclopaedia, which obviously, Koran is not. There is, in fact one verse, that indirectly say 'earth is round', though. See at the end of this msg.

Joe, you started this thing with your question: "Can somebody on this board tell me, how come a 1400 yrs old scripture, have got (some) of these modern scientific findings?" I must say the question got my interest. All I am asking for now is one clear, unambiguous reference that requires no leaps of faith or understanding to arrive at a "correct" interpretation, something that a man could not have written from knowledge available to man at that time, something that only God could have known. If it is something only God would have known, then clearly, God must have been the author. However, if it contains only things that Mohammed could reasonably have known, it seems reasonable to me to suppose that Mohammed probably was the author.

Johari MA: That is your perception. What I would expect, from an ancient man, is his (conspicious) personal bias... He did not (deliberately) say that the sun is orbiting earth... So, where is his personal bias? Therefore, that doubt should give us a question about the critical nature of the verses

In the sense that you describe it, it is ambiguous, and, given that ambiguity, I suppose you can interpret it any way you wish. My question is, if the author (God, or Mohammed) did not refer to the apparent orbits of the sun and the moon, why mention that the sun does not overtake the moon (apparently referring to the difference in apparent speed of daily orbit)?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 10:39pm Nov 23, 1997 ET (#853 of 853)

Johari MA: For verse 36:38, to my perception... "The sun runs his course" : rotating and orbiting center of milky way..., "for a period determined" : over 200 million yrs for 1 complete orbit. I don't know whether he knows what he is writing, at that time, as (I believe) he received it from God.

Well, okay. I think you are sewing a vest onto a button, but I suppose it can be interpreted in this manner. And for all I know, you might be right. I don't see it, however.

Johari MA: Right, I'll give you some homework...

It is going to take a while for me to wade through all the material you are throwing at me. I will answer these another time.

Johari MA: To coil or to wind is the translation of the Arabic verb kawwarra. The original meaning of the verb is to coil a turban around the head. The process of perpetual coiling, including the interpenetration of one sector by another is expressed in the Qur'an just as if the concept of the Earth's roundness had already been conceived at the time, which is clearly not the case.

How did you get from: "He coils the night upon the day and He coils the day upon the night," to the earth being round. Incidentally, it appears to me that 88:20 is a clear indication that the author thinks the earth is flat.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sohail Zia - 11:12pm Nov 23, 1997 ET (#854 of 863)

With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source

Noel Yap - 03:45pm Nov 17, 1997 ET (#805) Cliff Beall: If you mean human cloning to provide a child to a childless couple.

Noel Yap: I disagree, some believe this is tampering too much with what God had intended.

Nothing is tampering with God. However according to some faith (e.g. Islam, to my knowledge and limited understanding), there is a warning about 'not to change the shapes created by Creator' (sorry, I do not remember the exact location and verse of Koran) this can be (and perhaps it is by Muslim scholars) applied to altering DNA i.e. making genetic changes except for curing purposes (i.e. for attaining proper and normal natural health). This warning does not seems to be against cloning as a method of reproduction (where necessary), but instead altering the natural occurrence of species, perhaps also against creating new species as due to our limited knowledge we can never comprehend the complete side effects; both near and far (as an expanding human knowledge will always be limited). we should decide now whether these ethics include harvesting body parts from completely developed clones.Only if we could prove that the 'I' (one's self) can be removed and transferred from one body to another and that the clone contains the same 'I' as the original; at least twins defy the assumption. When we think in a natural fashion then the weak should loose and the healthier should survive, so the clone should survive and the original being weak should die (provided a weak original could produce a healthy clone); why the healthier should sacrifice for the weak. If however individual organs could be separately produced, the law of nature will automatically be fulfilled as the healthier will replace the weak i.e. the original.

< previous message Sohail Zia 11/23/97 1:47pm >

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 01:12pm Nov 24, 1997 ET (#855 of 863)

Packing material, Don't Eat!

Cosmology -- "manifold" may have been used incorrectly, it has been a long time since nth dimensional geometry for me.. :)

To clarify; the universe does appear to all testing to date to be a three dimensional "thingy," but it is also believed that it is "suspended" in a four dimensional "space." (For details, and the correct language, check out current cosmological references on "Superstring Theory.")

My relation of "parental replicant" cloning (that is cloning to reproduce) to incest was not intended to be a moral judgment. I related the two because the danger is similar, e.g. lack of genetic diversity. This probably isn't a real big issue, instinct will undoubtably keep the normall method of reproduction going quite nicely, but I do think it highlights just how serious the issues will be.

To me the only moral issue seems to be in creating a "clone class" of people who wouldn't be accorded "human rights." I don't think this will happen, but it is worth mentioning from time to time anyway.

I think the more significant issues will be the potential effects we could have on our own evolution. We have been taking our destiny in our own hands for some time now through medicine (my eyesight would probably have got me eaten by a bear 500k years ago before I could reproduce and pass oon the "myopic genes.") As we take an active part in the direction of our own evolution we have to ask ourselves what our goals are, and I haven't seen anyone do that yet.

P.s. I am not aware of any theory with wide acceptance that actually describes space as infinite, at any given time. Also, remember that a "ripple" an inch long in the structure of a universe that is two feet in "diameter" will be quite huge when that universe is many billions of light years in "diameter."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:37pm Nov 24, 1997 ET (#856 of 863)

Cliff Beall: With respect to the possibility of offering gays a mixed parentage children alternative to cloning, gays already have that (artificial insemination using an appropriate donor or surrogate). Okay, maybe it is not quite the same, but the "blue sky" to which you referred will not happen without government funding; the commercial application is too limited. (This is an example of an avenue of research that will be overlooked by the commercially backed scientific community.)

I don't see why private funding will necessarily ignore the needs and wants of gays (specially if they've got enough money.)

Cliff Beall: something we know to be true, but that would not be apparent to an intelligent observer in that time frame.

I must remind you that the Greeks and other ancients knew the world to be round. In fact, the Greeks were closer to calculating the size of the Earth than Columbus was.

Assuming we can do this and alternative, more-indirect correctional methods are insufficient for a particular individual, is this direct method better than capital punishment or life sentences? What's really the difference between directly rewiring the brain and conditioning and other behavioural rehabilitation?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:38pm Nov 24, 1997 ET (#857 of 863)

Johari MA: I do not personally believe that social behaviour are 100.00% under the influence of our genes. It is scientifically accepted that, complex traits are not under the (total) control of genes. The environment also play its role : proper education/guidance/good example is the real source for good/moral behaviour. Therefore, free will still exists, for the parents and the childrens, to play their roles appropriately, for their own sake.

Right, but the amount that nature and nurture play varies from individual to individual.

Cliff Beall: All I am asking for now is one clear, unambiguous reference that requires no leaps of faith or understanding to arrive at a "correct" interpretation, something that a man could not have written from knowledge available to man at that time, something that only God could have known.

I don't think this is possible 'cos the language used back then would not have had the clarity to talk about such scientific knowledge. IOW, they didn't have words for electrons, photons, galaxies, ... All they could do was describe these things as best as they could.

Sohail Zia: Nothing is tampering with God.

That's not what some people would say. It's too bad they're not properly represented on this board.

Keith Fosberg: I am not aware of any theory with wide acceptance that actually describes space as infinite,

I think this is partially due to the structure of the PhD committee. What normal person would pass a thesis that goes against what they've thought, been taught, and personally worked on most of their lives? From what

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:39pm Nov 24, 1997 ET (#858 of 863)

Keith Fosberg: I am not aware of any theory with wide acceptance that actually describes space as infinite,

I think this is partially due to the structure of the PhD committee. What normal person would pass a thesis that goes against what they've thought and personally worked on most of their lives? From what I see, the committee has taken over the role that the Church played in medieval times.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 06:29pm Nov 24, 1997 ET (#859 of 863)

(41:53)We will show them our signs on the furthest horizons and within themselves until they know that this is the truth.

Other translations:

051.047

YUSUFALI: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.

PICKTHAL: We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).

SHAKIR: And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample.

Dr Maurice Bucaille have emphasized that, due to the problem of understanding the verses in the Quran, some translations are misleading, because trying to figure out what the 'phrase' really mean in the Quran, would require knowledge that is sometimes not known at Muhammad's (pbuh) time. Could anybody at the time of Muhammand(pbuh) knew what is the (proper) name for the 'self propelled motion' for celestial body? This is the problem that is causing ambiguities. The word 'sama' in the Arabic language means 'extraterrestrial'. Some translator, will interpret it as 'heaven' (up in the sky)., whereas, extraterrestrial refers to something that is 'out/up there in the sky', the universe. 'We are expanding it', is the translation of the (plural) present participle musi'una of the verb ausa'a, meaning 'to make wider, more spacious, to extend, to expand'.

(Some explanation extracted from the book below+).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 06:47pm Nov 24, 1997 ET (#860 of 863)

(41:53)We will show them our signs on the furthest horizons and within themselves until they know that this is the truth.

With regard to 21:30, I think it is stretching things a bit to come up with the big bang

The word 'part asunder' means something that is 'broken to pieces', which may be, to you a bit stretching. But, the metaphoric statement is consistent with the current theory for the formation of the universe, that is the point. No contradiction. (To me, it is supportive - see the book below for more info.)

(ass*uming the theory of the big bang is correct).

He he he, I trust Professor. Stephen Hawkings/excellent astro physicist here, is more credible with their ass*umption. There is a difference between 'leaving room for doubts', than being FULL of doubts. Conjecture never avails the truth (53:28, 2:78, 45:24, 53:23).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 06:53pm Nov 24, 1997 ET (#861 of 863)

(41:53)We will show them our signs on the furthest horizons and within themselves until they know that this is the truth.

Joe, you started this thing with your question: "Can somebody on this......... only things that Mohammed could reasonably have known, it seems reasonable to me to suppose that Mohammed probably was the author.

I know what you mean, that's why I am giving you the verses, that is valuble to modern science, which are found in the Koran. What I expect from other people is, to consider the 'data'. Lets make it simple, if God does not exist, than you have to be able to ref*ute ALL existing religions/scriptures. Therefore, you have to be able to convince yourself,

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 07:04pm Nov 24, 1997 ET (#862 of 863)

(41:53)We will show them our signs on the furthest horizons and within themselves until they know that this is the truth.

that this book is nothing but a my*th . If it contains recent valuble info, then you have to admit that there is something special about this scripture, that you can not deny, is true. I quoted the first statement above, to see whether there are people out there, who has made critical analysis of the Koran itself, to deny the existance of God.

In the sense that you describe it, it is ambiguous

Sorry for the ambiguity. Let's make it simpler. Let's say Muhammad (pbuh) is 'the author'. Then he wrote two verses (36:38 and 36:40) talking about the sun/moon rotation and 'orbit', and they have their own (exact) 'period' (55:5 plus *). If I am himself, sitting on earth, then I would observe that the sun is 'orbiting' earth (rises in the east, sets in the west). This is a typical observation/conclusion from an ancient man, premature and naive. Then, when he wrote those two verses (plus others) about the sun, moon and it's orbits, ....and......he did not make a ref. to earth?. Why? Why did he not say that moon and sun is orbiting earth? For an ancient man, it is very likely that he would have said (personal bias), the sun is orbiting earth. But, I don't see him coupling the word orbit with earth. Why not? Anyway, as the word earth is not there, there is no contradiction. But, the word 'orbit' and 'period', surely is sth not known at that time, and that should be noted.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 07:04pm Nov 24, 1997 ET (#863 of 863)

(41:53)We will show them our signs on the furthest horizons and within themselves until they know that this is the truth.

why mention that the sun does not overtake the moon (apparently referring to the difference in apparent speed of daily orbit)?

There is a quantitative difference between the lunar and sun, in which the sun cannot overtake. The sun has ~25days/1 complete cycle on its axis. The moon has ~29.5 days/1 complete cycle (rotation) on its axis and this is constant (*39:5, 13:2, 35:13, 36:38). The sun also cannot overtake the moon, because 235 lunar months, corresponds exactly to (only) 19 Julian years of 365.25 days/yr. The sun also cannot overtake the lunar course, as they (both) have their own (unique) orbit (14:33*) The other interpretation : each entity have its own (separate) unique function/purpose that cannot be overtaken. Day is for working and night is for resting and they don't overlap. The lunar would function during the night, while the sun (predominates) during the day, they don't overlap.

I don't see it, however

You can see it, but, you don't know whether it's true or not, because you are not yet convinced.

It is going to take a while for me to wade through all the material you are throwing at me. I will answer these another time

He he he, I don't think question no. 1 will take a while to find 'the truth'.... , c'mon Cliff ;-o) ...(p/s I know, that's not FUNny).

88:20 is a clear indication that the author thinks the earth is flat.

Clear indication? Where is the word flat?

088.020

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:11am Nov 25, 1997 ET (#865 of 868)

Keith Fosberg: Cosmology -- "manifold" may have been used incorrectly, it has been a long time since nth dimensional geometry for me.. :)

Well, I'm sure you know more about current theory than me. I don't know what got into me to question it. But, of course, I question everything. It is my nature, I guess.

Keith Fosberg: To clarify...

I see you accept Superstring Theory. Hasn't it been around for a while. I would have assumed something else would be in vogue by now. (The Inflationary Universe didn't last very long did it?)

Keith Fosberg: To me the only moral issue seems to be in creating a "clone class" of people who wouldn't be accorded "human rights." I don't think this will happen, but it is worth mentioning from time to time anyway.

If you mean this in its broadest sense, I agree.

Keith Fosberg: As we take an active part in the direction of our own evolution we have to ask ourselves what our goals are, and I haven't seen anyone do that yet.

This is one difficult question. I certainly don't suggest we remove people's glasses and expose them to bears, as the answer.

Noel Yap: I don't see why private funding will necessarily ignore the needs and wants of gays (specially if they've got enough money.)

Yeah, you're probably right. I sometimes forget how many of them there are.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:15am Nov 25, 1997 ET (#866 of 868)

Noel Yap: I must remind you that the Greeks and other ancients knew the world to be round. In fact, the Greeks were closer to calculating the size of the Earth than Columbus was.

Yes, I remember reading that somewhere now that you mention it. As best I recall, they calculated the diameter of the earth by measuring the angle of the sun from two fairly distant locations (based on the length of the shadow cast by a vertical pole in the two locations). But they thought the moon and sun orbited the earth on a daily basis, did they not?

Noel Yap: I don't think this is possible 'cos the language used back then would not have had the clarity to talk about such scientific knowledge. IOW, they didn't have words for electrons, photons, galaxies, ... All they could do was describe these things as best as they could.

Yes, but it seems to me that if God wanted me to believe in him, he would be able to supply me with the evidence I need. Okay, I talk bravely about being comfortable about a belief system consisting mainly of "I don't know." But really, I want to know. When Johari indicated evidence might be in the Koran, I was immediately interested. So far, I haven't seen it.

Noel Yap: I think this is partially due to the structure of the PhD committee. What normal person would pass a thesis that goes against what they've thought and personally worked on most of their lives? From what I see, the committee has taken over the role that the Church played in medieval times.

Is this an example of science as religion?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:20am Nov 25, 1997 ET (#867 of 868)

Johari MA: I know what you mean, that's why I am giving you the verses, that is valuble to modern science, which are found in the Koran. What I expect from other people is, to consider the 'data'. Lets make it simple, if God does not exist, than you have to be able to ref*ute ALL existing religions/scriptures. Therefore, you have to be able to convince yourself, that this book is nothing but a my*th .

I do not have to do any such thing. Either I find a description of something that will convince me of its truth, or I do not. If I find it, I become convinced of its truth. If I do not, I still do not know. I may guess that the Bible, or the Koran, contains myth, but I do not know that it is "nothing but" myth. I can not know this. Where is the evidence that I would use? I know of no evidence to prove either is "nothing but" myth. Certainly, I would in no way attempt to refute all existing religions/scriptures. I do not think it can be done.

Johari MA: Then, when he wrote those two verses (plus others) about the sun, moon and it's orbits, ....and......he did not make a ref. to earth?. Why?

I think the context indicates orbit of the sun around the earth.

Johari MA: You can see it, but, you don't know whether it's true or not, because you are not yet convinced.

What I mean is that I do not see the full correct picture in the Koran. The leap in understanding you provide is fine. But just because you can offer a possible explanation is not the same as reading the explanation from the text itself.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:22am Nov 25, 1997 ET (#868 of 868)

Cliff Beall: 88:20 is a clear indication that the author thinks the earth is flat.

Johari MA: Clear indication? Where is the word flat?

Joe, to be perfectly frank, I am having difficulty counting the verses from the side references in the translation I have. They sometimes don't add up. It is becoming clear to me that I need another translation. The one I have (Dawood) has the chapters rearranged which makes it difficult to find the references you cite (it has a "Traditional Sequence" with page numbers in the back which makes it possible, but it is cumbersome. Furthermore, although this translation matched the reference Sohail quoted fairly well, which gave me confidence, it does not always match that well. I will quote the whole passage as given 88-17, 88-20: "Let them reflect on the camels, and how they were created; the heaven, how it was raised on high; the mountains, how they were set down; the earth, how it was leveled flat." That is what I was referring to, but I think I will need to get another translation before we can continue this discussion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 01:45am Nov 25, 1997 ET (#868 of 875)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Hey guys, I haven't been here in a while (you know, lots to do, 'n stuff). I didn't bother reading the past hundred or so messages since I have assumed that they somehow twisted a perfectly good biology discussion to the current analyzing of religious literature, which does not really interest me right now. If this discussion ever gets back on track, I may join in again.

Later,

Tom

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 02:21am Nov 25, 1997 ET (#869 of 875)

Aw, shucks, Tom, just a little diversion. Don't hold it against us.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 07:52am Nov 25, 1997 ET (#870 of 875)

Cliff,

You can find triple translations here. I don't know whether you got the last msg... if not, pls email me.... and what's your email address, its not listed on this board.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:01pm Nov 25, 1997 ET (#871 of 875)

Johari MA: I trust Professor. Stephen Hawkings/excellent astro physicist here, is more credible with their ass*umption.

I tend to trust the experts, also, but keep in mind that the experts have no empirical evidence to support their claims. They are theoretical physicists who need experimental backing.

Johari MA: The sun also cannot overtake the moon, because 235 lunar months, corresponds exactly to (only) 19 Julian years of 365.25 days/yr.

I must point out that, although your numbers are close, there is nothing exact in nature. The number of hours per day fluctuates -- and hence we have leap seconds. This is due to the odd shape of the Earth. Even if we deal with pure ellipsoids, there is slightly more than 365.24 days per year. This is why scientists want to add another leap day either in 2068 or 2069.

Cliff Beall: But [the Greeks] thought the moon and sun orbited the earth on a daily basis, did they not?

As I recall (from my education, not personal experience :), yes. Their mythology spoke of Apollo riding his chariot across the sky.

But, one example you were asking for was their knowledge of the Earth being round. Of course, this knowledge didn't come from their religion, but from science.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:02pm Nov 25, 1997 ET (#872 of 875)

Cliff Beall: Is this an example of science as religion?

Could be.

Johari MA: What 'normal' person Mr Noel?? he he he; What 'normal' person goes against the conclusive and credible data up to date?

Right, very few people will actually question (much less abandon) past teachings in search for truth. This leaves us with many, many people (including some scientists) who will cling to old, false ideas.

PS, I don't mind the colors, but could you "blockquote" past posts and quotes? I cut and paste the messages to a text file where I do my editing. Unfortunately, colors get lost in the transfer. Thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 07:40pm Nov 25, 1997 ET (#873 of 875)

Cliff Beall 11/25/97 12:20am

CB:I may guess that the Bible, or the Koran, contains myth, but I do not know that it is "nothing but" myth. I can not know this.

I don't think this is what I believe. I believe that one is able to know what is a myth and what is a true revelation. Maybe Sohail would like to comment on this.

CB:I would in no way attempt to refute all existing religions/scriptures.

Ok, refute may sound a bit extreme, but 'a comparative study' sounds ok for me, to find a true answer.

CB:I do not think it can be done.

I think we can; we have been given the capacity to reason, and based on my experience, I say we can. You may have your own view, though.

CB:I think the context indicates orbit of the sun around the earth

You assume

CB:But just because you can offer a possible explanation is not the same as reading the explanation from the text itself.

At some instance, it is not a possible explanation, it is the only explanation, take the wind pollination for example; That sentence carry a clear (true) info that is only understood in the modern era.... and the water cycle in the Koran, will quote the verses when there is time.

Noel Yap 11/25/97 3:01pm

NY: I t

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 07:41pm Nov 25, 1997 ET (#874 of 875)

Noel Yap 11/25/97 3:01pm

NY: I tend to trust the experts, also, but keep in mind that the experts have no empirical evidence to support their claims.

Thks for the reminder; I'll (also) keep in mind who is the Professor. We may not be able to proof (exactly) how it happened, but the theory is still scientifically credible.

NY:I must point out that, although your numbers are close, there is nothing exact in nature...........................days per year. This is why scientists want to add another leap day either in 2068 or 2069.

Thks for the additional info. FYI, I mentioned that numbers (just) for relative comparison to support the word 'overtake'. IMO, it need not be exact 100%, because the (difference) in the numbers are clear enough.

NY:But, one example you were asking for was their knowledge of the Earth being round. Of course, this knowledge didn't come from their religion, but from science.

I did not say that religion/scripture 'made' science today. What I am trying to point out here is, there is a scripture that is quoting 'modern knowledge' that is not available at the time when it is written down. That is the specialty of this scripture from others.

NY:Right, very few people will actually question (much less abandon) past teachings in search for truth. This leaves us with many, many people (including some scientists) who will cling to old, false ideas.

mmmmm, i'll leave th

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 07:43pm Nov 25, 1997 ET (#875 of 875)

mmmmm, i'll leave that one.

NY:PS, I don't mind the colors, but could you "blockquote" past posts and quotes? I cut and paste the messages to a text file where I do my editing. Unfortunately, colors get lost in the transfer. Thanks.

Use Composer Noel, it's easy. Click, cut and paste. I don't like black quote, unless when necessary. Sorry about that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:04am Nov 26, 1997 ET (#876 of 878)

First, Johari, thanks for the link. Last night, I was really feeling sorry for myself, and I couldn't help reflecting on the fact that years ago when I was studying the Bible, I had tools, like several versions of the Bible, a couple of commentaries and a good concordance, but here, I had nothing but a "rearranged" translation of the Koran (or Qur'an, if you prefer). The link worked great, however. With the search capabilities available to me at that site, I was in hog heaven.

With respect to 15:22, it seems to me that the main emphasis is on rain to provide water to drink. There is no follow-up on the notion of the wind containing pollen (or such like) to fertilize plant life. However, it may refer to seeds that ride the wind and grow where ever they land, when the rains come, also. The Koran is great poetry, and intended double meanings to verses should not be ruled out.

I would suspect that 39:06 refers to three moon cycles. I would not find it surprising that men who spent a significant portion of their lives outdoors, observing the heavens, to notice the gestation period is three moon cycles long.

With respect to 34:3, the verse makes mention that even something as small as an atom does not escape the attention of God. There are similar scriptures in the Bible, although the Bible does not refer to an atom since the concept of an atom had not yet been born.

The verses 75:3-4 appear to mean exactly what you say they mean. In context with previous verses, 75:4 clearly refers to the idea of identification, and using fingerprints as a means of identification. But I am not sure of the significance. Fingerprints are not exactly invisible. I would guess that the uniqueness of fingerprints have probably been discovered at least a thousand times over the centuries by a thousand different people. (Well, maybe not a thousand.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:09am Nov 26, 1997 ET (#877 of 878)

Noel Yap: But, one example you were asking for was their knowledge of the Earth being round. Of course, this knowledge didn't come from their religion, but from science.

Your right.

Noel Yap: Right, very few people will actually question (much less abandon) past teachings in search for truth. This leaves us with many, many people (including some scientists) who will cling to old, false ideas.

Your right again.

Johari MA: I don't think this is what I believe. I believe that one is able to know what is a myth and what is a true revelation. Maybe Sohail would like to comment on this.

I believe I can say with full assurance of being correct that the flood saga of Noah and the arc in Genesis, and repeated in the Koran, is a myth. Does that mean that everything in the Bible or in the Koran is necessarily a myth. Of course not. And, anyway, I would point out that myth (fiction) sometimes teaches a great truth. The parables of Jesus might be classified as myth, but they teach great truth. I think the world would be poorer without them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:11am Nov 26, 1997 ET (#878 of 878)

Johari MA: I did not say that religion/scripture 'made' science today. What I am trying to point out here is, there is a scripture that is quoting 'modern knowledge' that is not available at the time when it is written down.

I find no evidence of that. What I have found is evidence that the author thought the earth was flat ( "like a carpet spread out" or "as a bed"). In support of this conclusion, I offer the following references: 20.53, 51.48, 88:20, 71.19, 78.6, 79.30 and 91.6. I am aware that you will interpret these verses differently, and I have no quarrel with that. I hope you continue to find strength in your religion. However, in view of this, in addition to a careful examination of the verses you have suggested, plus additional reading on my own, I am now fully convinced that the Koran, like the Bible, does not contain the kind of evidence that I seek. I am, therefore, ready to start discussing cloning again.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 07:49am Nov 26, 1997 ET (#879 of 891)

Johari MA: Use Composer Noel, it's easy.

I'm on a Unix system -- a real OS -- and using vi.

Johari MA: I don't like black quote, unless when necessary. Sorry about that.

That's fine so long as you stick to labeling the authors' initials as I see you are now doing.

Cliff Beall: I would guess that the uniqueness of fingerprints have probably been discovered at least a thousand times over the centuries by a thousand different people.

Actually, Mark Twain (aka Samuel Clemens ?) was the first in the Western world to write about using fingerprints for identification.

Cliff Beall: I believe I can say with full assurance of being correct that the flood saga of Noah and the arc in Genesis, and repeated in the Koran, is a myth.

Many religions have this story. I think it's reality might be true to an extent. So, for now anyway, it's more a tall tale or parable to me than a myth.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 07:49am Nov 26, 1997 ET (#880 of 891)

Cliff Beall: Does that mean that everything in the Bible or in the Koran is necessarily a myth. Of course not. I would point out that myth (fiction) sometimes teaches a great truth. The parables of Jesus might be classified as myth, but they teach great truth. I think the world would be poorer without them.

I agree completely.

Cliff Beall: I am, therefore, ready to start discussing cloning again.

Cool. Here's a thought. Cloning would place us one step closer to immortality. By lengthening our life spans, the disparity between the weak (physically, mentally, or emotionally) and the strong will widen. This would cause social and societal distress worse than what we see now. This doesn't mean that we have to avoid cloning, but that we need to look for ways to alleviate the problems it might bring about.

For example, if what I posted has a high chance of occurring, we could send the "super-humans" out to explore space. Of course, this solution would mean we need to research space exploration more than we do now.

Another solution might be to instill (yet even more) socialism into our society so the weak don't suffer and die. Or we could get rid of socialism so the weak do die.

As you can see, I am not making any judgements on the given "solutions," just merely supporting my belief that an out-of-balance society is not optimal and could actually die if nothing is done.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 11:02am Nov 26, 1997 ET (#881 of 891)

Noel, "Here's a thought. Cloning would place us one step closer to immortality. By lengthening our life spans, the disparity between the weak (physically, mentally, or emotionally) and the strong will widen. This would cause social and societal distress worse than what we see now."

Finally something I can discuss, if you don't mind me jumping back in again. I would agree completely with the statement above if cloning were advanced in a vacuum. That is, if it were the only medical technology that was researched. I don't think it will be. I see cloning as a part of a much broader collection of procedures and techniques that include genetic engineering, nanotechnology, viral therapy, and a bunch of other approaches that will work together to better human health. The question you'd ask, if I may presume to anticipate you, is, "Will these new techniques be available to everyone, or just the rich?"

I'd hope that equal access will be available. If we create a society of haves and have-nots where the haves are immortal, the have-nots will quickly demonstrate just how mortal the haves are!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 02:17pm Nov 26, 1997 ET (#882 of 891)

M.A.DeLuca: The question you'd ask, if I may presume to anticipate you, is, "Will these new techniques be available to everyone, or just the rich?"

Actually, I was kind've assuming that the tech would be available only to some people (whether they are rich or not doesn't matter.) The situation I pose is that since these people can live longer, they can amass more life experiences that they can pass on to their children. These children will be better prepared for the world than those whose parents didn't have the tech. After a few generations, the disparity would be enourmous.

It's analogous to saying, "What if ten years ago, I knew what I know now?" I'd be ten years ahead of the game. If I could live longer, I could be 90 years old competing for the same jobs held by 50 year olds. Since I've had much more experience, I should easily be able to out-qualify the younger kid. Of course, this assumes either no new careers existed for the super-human or I wasn't qualified for those new careers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 02:33pm Nov 26, 1997 ET (#883 of 891)

Another point I'd like to make is that experience is not the only thing that will be collected. People with extended lives can also collect more money. This money can then allow their children to spend more time in school to gain more knowledge before they start working. This feedback mechanism will also increase the chasm between the have's the and have-not's.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 02:36pm Nov 26, 1997 ET (#884 of 891)

Hmmm...I wouldn't be surprised if something like that did happen. Those who will avail themselves of the technology will profit from it in some way, whereas those who do not will simply...die off. I think of myself as an extropian and want to live forever. When the technology is in place, I hope to take advantage of it. But I do know people who don't want to live forever. They feel that death is part of life.

Problems will arise if there are too many who want it but can't have it. Especially if there is some clearly defined class boundaries between those who can achieve immortality and those who can not.

But if I do get access to the technology I want and I get to be 100 years old yet still have the mental skills I have now (hold those potshots!), then I imagine I'll also be working long enough to amass the wealth I need to retire comfortably and remove myself from the workforce. I'll dally with one hobby or another and if I find some other vocation I want to spend a decade or two involved with, I imagine it will take time for me to get the expertise needed to block other workers. And by then, I'll get bored and retire again.

Immortality has the chance to finally remove age from hiring practice, since a company won't have a reason to worry about hiring a 50 or 60 year old and then losing that employee because of health reasons a few years later.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 03:08pm Nov 26, 1997 ET (#885 of 891)

Whoops! It looks like we cross-posted there! So, you feel that the result of this technology will be further stratification of society? That a group will emerge that will take full advantage of this technology and will somehow prevent others from joining in? That's where I have my doubts; I'm not sure how the haves will deny the have-nots.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:11pm Nov 26, 1997 ET (#886 of 891)

M.A.DeLuca: Problems will arise if there are too many who want it but can't have it.

I think problems will arise even if supply meets demand.

For the reasons I stated previously, before the have-nots die, they'll be suffering. If too many are suffering ('cos the have's out-qualify them for jobs), society has a problem.

I've said before that death is preferable to suffering. This is a good case in point.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A.DeLuca - 03:22pm Nov 26, 1997 ET (#887 of 891)

So, you think this technology will increase suffering?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 06:16pm Nov 26, 1997 ET (#888 of 891)

CB:With respect to 15:22, it seems to me that the main emphasis is on rain to provide water to drink.

CB: However, it may refer to seeds that ride the wind and grow where ever they land, when the rains come, also.

It seems to me you are again assuming. The phrase is plain clear. The dictionary explains the word fecundate clearly, and need not any other 'side of the point' assumption.

CB:The Koran is great poetry, and intended double meanings to verses should not be ruled out.

Whatever you intend to percept, but truth speaks by itself, and if you don't want to admit the obvious facts (orbit, period and fecundate + others), that is your choice. I'll add another obvious proof*, to make things a lot clearer....

CB:I would suspect that 39:06 refers to three moon cycles. I would not ........... is three moon cycles long.

What? You are really creating a myth :-) and.... you suspect. Another assumption. I wouldn't be surprised to find if other people find it uneasy to explain the other (supporting) verses.

CB: With respect to 34:3, the verse makes mention that even something as small as an atom does not escape the attention of God. There are similar scriptures in the Bible, although the Bible does not refer to an atom since the concept of an atom had not yet been born.

1. You didn't answer my question.

2. Pls quote link and the chapter for proof, otherwise your claim is nothing.

CB:The verses 75:3-4 appear to mean exactly what you say they mean. ................... centuries by a thousand different people. (Well, maybe not a thousand.)

You shou

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 06:17pm Nov 26, 1997 ET (#889 of 891)

You should check encyclopaedia, for confirmation; Not assuming, and assuming and assuming.... (53:28, 2:78, 45:24, 53:23).

CB: You are right again.

Mr Noel, is making an open statement. I prefer to be 'abstein' for his quote , though I have an agreement. I do agree with his general notion, when I evaluate other belief system(s). I have met lots of people, and I know, that there are human beings who clings to false ideas, which is, to me, (fundamentally) not true. (eg. there are Professor(s) who think that God is a 'human being', which is totally denied by my belief system, and I found that my belief system denied that very reasonably). The core strength of a belief system lies on the definition of 'God'. If the belief system failed on this, it is very unlikely to be true, logically speaking.

CB:I believe I can say with full assurance of being correct that the flood saga of Noah and the arc in Genesis, and repeated in the Koran, is a myth.

You can say with full assurance? He he he... scientists are still investigating this, and ... any premature conclusion is nothing but another (extended) speculation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 06:17pm Nov 26, 1997 ET (#890 of 891)

Cliff Beall: I am, therefore, ready to start discussing cloning again.

I know.... it's not that easy for human to deny obvious things, truth speaks by itself, that's the specialty of 'the truth'. I also have my own time constraint, but before getting off... I'd like to make a bit clarification: (it's just for me and for those who got confused)

1. There is no such thing as a personal God in my belief system (personification). When I told the story about God/Nafs earlier, it is only to be understood metaphorically. We believers, are not allowed to imagine how God 'speak' and 'interface' nafs. How the event happened, is not known to us. Associating God with a human or any being or anything imaginable in this reality, is a great sin in my belief system. (3:64,18:38,22:26, 24:55, 52:43, ++).

2. The God that I know, did not need love or anything from man, as He is self sufficient .(29:6,35:15, 3:97, 27:40, 29:6, 39:7,57:24, 64:6, ++) Man have to love God for his own sake, not for God. If anyone rejects Him, He can replace them with another creation, as He wills (4:133, 14:19-20, 11:60, 11:68, 11:95).

3. Although I did say 'I don't have answers to everything', I do know that God is all Merciful, and people who gets harder test, will be rewarded accordingly on the DOJ. People who pass 'harder' test, go to a better heaven.(2:29, 23:17,67:3,71:15-16,78:12). ...and as Sohail said, our existance is due to His Love, not wrath.

Another one (my last) proof* (speaks by itself)

[No reply necessary... reprinted for the purpose of 'education/teaching' from the book suggested previously]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 06:17pm Nov 26, 1997 ET (#891 of 891)

For many centuries, man held totally inaccurate views of the water cycle. Two specialist on this subject, G. Gastany and B. Blavoux, in their entry in the Universalis Encyclopedia (Encyclopedia Universalis) under the heading Hydrogeology give an edifying history of this problem.

In the 17th. century BC, Thales of Miletus held the theory whereby the waters of the oceans, under the effect of winds, were thrust towards the interior of the continents; so the water fell upon the earth and penetrated into the soil. Plato shared these views and thought that the return of the waters to the oceans was via a great abyss, the 'Tartarus'. This theory had many supporters until the 18th century, one of whom was Descartes. Aristotle imagined that that the water vapour from the soil condensed in cool mountain caverns and formed underground lakes that fed springs. He was followed by Seneca (1st Century AD). and many others, until 1877, among them O. Volger.

The first clear formulation of the water cycle must be attributed to Bernard Palissy in 1580 : he claimed that underground water came from rainwater infiltrating into the soil. This theory was confrimed by E. Mariotte and P Perrault in the 17th. Century. The following verses shows clear indication about the validity of information in the Koran.

23:18-19: We sent down water from the sky in measure and lodged it in the ground. And We certainly are able to withdraw it.

39:21 Seest thou not that Allah sends down rain from the sky, and leads it through springs in the earth?

Oki dok, chiaow...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:12am Nov 27, 1997 ET (#892 of 896)

Noel Yap: I'm on a Unix system -- a real OS -- and using vi.

Talk about archaic: can't you afford Windows?

Noel Yap: Cool. Here's a thought. Cloning would place us one step closer to immortality. By lengthening our life spans, the disparity between the weak (physically, mentally, or emotionally) and the strong will widen. This would cause social and societal distress worse than what we see now. This doesn't mean that we have to avoid cloning, but that we need to look for ways to alleviate the problems it might bring about.

Maybe it depends on who are the weak and who are the strong--in real terms. Medicines currently keep "physically weak" people alive to procreate and pass on weak genes. In a sense, it is no longer survival of the fittest, but survival of the ones to which certain technologies are made available.

Our goal seems to be to actively extend the technologies for increased life span regardless of the long term detrimental effects on our evolution and to increase population on an increasing scale to more quickly use up available limited resources. But morally speaking, how can one deny life extending procedures to those who need it to stay alive? Cloning is supposed to make certain life extending medicines cheaper. This seems good, but down the road, perhaps the more widespread the use of these life extending therapies become, the sooner the ultimate total destruction of the human race.

Noel Yap: As you can see, I am not making any judgements on the given "solutions," just merely supporting my belief that an out-of-balance society is not optimal and could actually die if nothing is done.

That sounds like a value judgement to me. But I agree.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:23am Nov 27, 1997 ET (#893 of 896)

M.A.DeLuca: I'd hope that equal access will be available. If we create a society of haves and have-nots where the haves are immortal, the have-nots will quickly demonstrate just how mortal the haves are!

That is a nice thought. But if everybody has it, resources will be used up sooner. Maybe it would be better to limit the technology to a select, special, favored few. Maybe then the have-nots will kill off the haves and throw mankind back into the cave era where only the fittest survive. It may be the only way to save the human race.

Noel Yap: It's analogous to saying, "What if ten years ago, I knew what I know now?" I'd be ten years ahead of the game. If I could live longer, I could be 90 years old competing for the same jobs held by 50 year olds. Since I've had much more experience, I should easily be able to out-qualify the younger kid. Of course, this assumes either no new careers existed for the super-human or I wasn't qualified for those new careers.

It is hard to say which way you might expect to out-qualify the younger (50 year old) kid. In general, while five years experience with a job is usually considered significantly better than 1 year, particularly, in the professions, but also the semi-professions, thirty years is usually not considered much better than twenty years. This is one manifestation of the law of diminishing returns. (The funny thing about being ten years older is that one tends to forget about ten years worth of stuff.) In order to be a super-human, you'd need to have your memory improved. But I guess that is in the works also.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:24am Nov 27, 1997 ET (#894 of 896)

Noel Yap: Another point I'd like to make is that experience is not the only thing that will be collected. People with extended lives can also collect more money. This money can then allow their children to spend more time in school to gain more knowledge before they start working. This feedback mechanism will also increase the chasm between the have's the and have-not's.

Of course, in that case, there may be more "professional students." In a way this could be good in the sense it might result in less competition for jobs, and "over qualification" for many jobs when the professional student finally did decide to take a job.

M.A.DeLuca: Those who will avail themselves of the technology will profit from it in some way, whereas those who do not will simply...die off. I think of myself as an extropian and want to live forever. When the technology is in place, I hope to take advantage of it. But I do know people who don't want to live forever. They feel that death is part of life.

Those who do not avail themselves of the technology will die, of course, but they probably won't die off. When I was growing up back in the fifties, the population of the USA was 180,000,000. Now it is 270,000,000. Lots of people have died. But more have been born. (And a bunch have moved in.) I expect this trend to continue until resources really get tight.

M.A.DeLuca: Immortality has the chance to finally remove age from hiring practice, since a company won't have a reason to worry about hiring a 50 or 60 year old and then losing that employee because of health reasons a few years later.

I don't think that concern for health a few years down the road is the main reason companies prefer to hire youth. I think the main reason is that youth tends to be less resistent to change (less set in their ways). Or, at least that is the perception. Also, they are often less demanding of money.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:35am Nov 27, 1997 ET (#895 of 896)

Noel Yap: For the reasons I stated previously, before the have-nots die, they'll be suffering. If too many are suffering ('cos the have's out-qualify them for jobs), society has a problem...I've said before that death is preferable to suffering. This is a good case in point.

I agree.

Johari MA: You didn't answer my question

To what question are you referring, Joe? After quoting the "atom" scripture, you said: "Atomism. The Greek philosopher Democritus (460-361 BC) advanced the theory that matter was composed of tiny, indivisible particles called Atoms. Modern science has discovered that there is the Atom, but that Atom is divisible."

I wasn't aware that you had asked a question. I merely looked up the verse you quoted, read the verses immediately before and after in an attempt see the context and came to an opinion as to what the verse was intended to convey. What was the question to which you refer?

Johari MA: Pls quote link and the chapter for proof, otherwise your claim is nothing.

It was just something I happened to remember. I didn't know I would be called on to prove it. There is one such scripture from the Bible which would be relatively easy for me to find. All I would have to do to find it would be to look up the word "sparrow" in a concordance. But I don't care to worry about proving it. In consequence, I guess, as you say, my claim is nothing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:41am Nov 27, 1997 ET (#896 of 896)

Johari MA: You can say with full assurance? He he he... scientists are still investigating this, and ... any premature conclusion is nothing but another (extended) speculation.

Are you saying it remains a possibility that, about 4000 years ago, there was a worldwide flood that completely covered the earth with water and destroyed all of humanity, and all land animals, except for Noah and his family, and the animals that were taken into the arc?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kurt Schoedel - 04:03am Nov 27, 1997 ET (#897 of 898)

I am also an "extropian" and am practicing "life-extension" techniques such as antioxidants, body-building, etc. I also am in the process of signing up for cryonic suspension in case I don't make it (the first time around).

Radical life-extension will only occur if the stem-cell or cell-line regeneration techniques are developed such that it can be done "in-vivo" as opposed to transplant of organs in tissues that are grown in vats. The reason is that the first is much less expensive that the second. The second could only be done by multi-millionaires whereas the first opens the door to making it available to the third world (it would be injection rather than surgery based). As I said before, free market competition will eventually drive down the cost of the "immortality" treatment such that it will be less expensive than the "band-aid" technology currently used in developed countries to keep old people alive (that insurance pays for). An immortalist society will be like one where everyone is 20-40 years old but where noone ages and dies. it would be a "young adult" orriented society. As such, I think the birth rate would plummit because the only people who would have kids would be those who are genuinely into it. Most people who have kids for either selfish reasons or for fear of growing old alone would be liberated from thier fears and, therefor, would not have kids. I don't think that over-population would become a problem. Besides, every immortalist I've know (including myself) eventually wants to migrate into space. The development of immortality will turn the world into a young-adult party zone. I definitely look forward to it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 11:52am Nov 27, 1997 ET (#898 of 898)

Gosh, it sure would be nice to see forty again. I must say that I have never been into immortality before, and I really have no problem with dying. I have already done most of what I wanted to do in this life, but maybe I wouldn't mind doing it again, except maybe with more money.

I think that overpopulation is a real problem that, as far as I know, only China is addressing. Sooner or later, we will have to do the same thing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 05:22pm Nov 27, 1997 ET (#899 of 902)

Cliff Beall 11/27/97 1:35am

CB:I wasn't aware that you had asked a question

I see, sorry about that.

CB:There is one such scripture from the Bible which would be relatively easy for me to find.

But you didn't

CB:All I would have to do to find it would be to look up the word "sparrow" in a concordance

Too far away from what I am pointing out

CB:Are you saying it remains a possibility that, about 4000 years ago

From my experience, after my critical analysis, I found the facts in the Koran very special than other scriptures, and it does not contradict modern scientific findings. Due to these facts, (I believe) it is unlikely that for Koran could contain false information. If Muhammad (pbuh) creates the story, then, I would say, there should not be any 'advance facts' in the Koran. It should only contain things that are common to ancient man. There are scientists (still) pursuing for this issue. Anyone who wants to make a conclusion at this time, it is their choice (free will).

Cliff, I have spoken enough; a pile of (unupdated) work waiting for me ... It has been a nice chat, and my apology if I have said anything not appropriate. If I sounds a bit 'unfriendly', sometimes, pls take it just as a joke, for fun. There are lots of other critical analysis by Dr. Maurice not presented. We all have our own choice and justifications (109:1-6,2:256); and as for

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws