Jokes2 mins ago
Keyplus: Answers to your questions
64 Answers
Since Venator, on his thread - http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
1 – Is Professor Moore a known personality when it comes to Embryology?
Personality is an odd word to choose. Expert is what I'd say. And yes, he is.
2 – Did he say that whatever is there in Quran agrees with modern knowledge?
Yes, he did.
3 – Do you believe that he did not know about what Galen and others said?
That Moore didn't know? I don't know for certain. I would suspect that he probably would, but there's no necessity to learn about outdated theories to be an expert on the current ones.
4 – Finally if he did all this because of money as suggested by Naomi, then is there any direct statement from him clarifying that either way? Or perhaps Naomi is his book-keeper.
Keep your ad hominems (Mr "I don't do fallacies") about Naomi to yourself. If you have questions or comments for her, I suggest you direct them to her. She's perfectly capable of answering you herself.
However, Moore's work on the Quran and embryology occured during a three year period when he was working at King Abdulazziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. I hardly think that it requires a great deal of imagination to realise that he would have been well rewarded for his work there.
Whether a direct quote exists, I have no idea. I'm sure you'll see this as vindication.
By the way, can you tell me whether there is any direct statement from your best friend's father clarifying that either way whether he enjoyed sex with goats? Please be assured that I do not mean to really suggest that your best friend's father had sex with goats; obviously I have no idea who your best friend is, let alone his father and would not wish to be misinterpreted as though I actually meant to suggest this was anything other than a means of making a point hypothetically about necessarily inferring too much value from direct statements.
5 – Why his work is being taught today in the medical colleges if the gut is not so credible?
I presume you mean 'guy' not 'gut'. His work on embryology is fine (though possibly some is out of date now. He's an emeritus prof., long since retired.)
Where we have an issue is where he has made statements to the effect that vaguely phrased, incorrect claims in the Quran that are clearly based upon earlier, also incorrect Greek claims are scientifically accurate by the standards of our modern understanding, when they are not.
As before, don't take my word for it. If you wish to test this claim, simply read what the Quran says and compare it to an actual scientific text on the subject. Open a book. Read what it says and think about it. The Great and Terrible McFroog demands that you test his claims (FX. Puff of red smoke and fire over portentious booming and clashing sounds)
For additional fun, you might like to read up on how certain words in the relevant passages Quranic claims have been re-interpreted over time to fit newly discovered scientific evidence. Funny how the words can change in meaning over time, isn't it?
Then look up the term 'retcon' and see if you can think of any ways it might apply in this situation.
Personality is an odd word to choose. Expert is what I'd say. And yes, he is.
2 – Did he say that whatever is there in Quran agrees with modern knowledge?
Yes, he did.
3 – Do you believe that he did not know about what Galen and others said?
That Moore didn't know? I don't know for certain. I would suspect that he probably would, but there's no necessity to learn about outdated theories to be an expert on the current ones.
4 – Finally if he did all this because of money as suggested by Naomi, then is there any direct statement from him clarifying that either way? Or perhaps Naomi is his book-keeper.
Keep your ad hominems (Mr "I don't do fallacies") about Naomi to yourself. If you have questions or comments for her, I suggest you direct them to her. She's perfectly capable of answering you herself.
However, Moore's work on the Quran and embryology occured during a three year period when he was working at King Abdulazziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. I hardly think that it requires a great deal of imagination to realise that he would have been well rewarded for his work there.
Whether a direct quote exists, I have no idea. I'm sure you'll see this as vindication.
By the way, can you tell me whether there is any direct statement from your best friend's father clarifying that either way whether he enjoyed sex with goats? Please be assured that I do not mean to really suggest that your best friend's father had sex with goats; obviously I have no idea who your best friend is, let alone his father and would not wish to be misinterpreted as though I actually meant to suggest this was anything other than a means of making a point hypothetically about necessarily inferring too much value from direct statements.
5 – Why his work is being taught today in the medical colleges if the gut is not so credible?
I presume you mean 'guy' not 'gut'. His work on embryology is fine (though possibly some is out of date now. He's an emeritus prof., long since retired.)
Where we have an issue is where he has made statements to the effect that vaguely phrased, incorrect claims in the Quran that are clearly based upon earlier, also incorrect Greek claims are scientifically accurate by the standards of our modern understanding, when they are not.
As before, don't take my word for it. If you wish to test this claim, simply read what the Quran says and compare it to an actual scientific text on the subject. Open a book. Read what it says and think about it. The Great and Terrible McFroog demands that you test his claims (FX. Puff of red smoke and fire over portentious booming and clashing sounds)
For additional fun, you might like to read up on how certain words in the relevant passages Quranic claims have been re-interpreted over time to fit newly discovered scientific evidence. Funny how the words can change in meaning over time, isn't it?
Then look up the term 'retcon' and see if you can think of any ways it might apply in this situation.
////he was working for the Saudi government - and he said what he said in order to retain possession of his head!!////
As you may not admit after few months that you said this and I do not waste time on going back into archives looking for these things. Therefore let’s talk about what you said just now in this post (mentioned above). When did he say that? Have you got any credible source? Please produce.
As you may not admit after few months that you said this and I do not waste time on going back into archives looking for these things. Therefore let’s talk about what you said just now in this post (mentioned above). When did he say that? Have you got any credible source? Please produce.
Keyplus, if you claim I said Professor Moore compromised his reputation and his professionalism for the money - which is what you are claiming - show me where I said it - and whilst you're at it tell me what scientist, whilst working in Saudi Arabia for the Saudi government, would be dim-witted enough to put his life in danger by telling one of the most barbaric regimes in the world that its holy book is wrong - or by subsequently explaining his reasons for failing to do so? He would have been incredibly stupid to do either - for obvious reasons! I can't think why he isn't proclaiming this joyous news from the rooftops - but he isn't. There's no doubt he's been strangely quiet about it all ever since! I know you're in denial, Keyplus, but do try to muster up a bit of common sense. Every time you raise this subject your posts become sillier and more desperate.
Keyplus - “... Why his work is being taught today in the medical colleges if the gut [sic] is not so credible?...”
It isn't. Are you blind and deaf as well as ignorant?
Dr Moore's pronouncements and opinions on the veracity of the embryonic theory 'revealed' in the Koran are NOT taught by any CREDIBLE scientific body anywhere in the world. How many times does it have to be said Keyplus?
Keith Moore was under duress when he made those statements and wrote those words. You do understand the concept of 'duress' don't you? It's when someone is, for want of a better word, forced to make statements and do certain things that they otherwise would not do. They do this because they fear for their own safety and/or the safety of loved ones and friends.
To repeat Keyplus, Keith Moore's theories on the veracity of the embryonic theory contained within the Koran are not taught by any credible scientific body anywhere in the world. They are however, repeated ad-infinitum by pedallers of Islam such as yourself and others who, despite their apparent scientific credentials, bring science in disrepute by attempting to defend the spurious theories espoused by a man clearly under duress.
I see you're still ignoring me and demonstrating that you are an ignoramus in the process. Outstanding work.
It isn't. Are you blind and deaf as well as ignorant?
Dr Moore's pronouncements and opinions on the veracity of the embryonic theory 'revealed' in the Koran are NOT taught by any CREDIBLE scientific body anywhere in the world. How many times does it have to be said Keyplus?
Keith Moore was under duress when he made those statements and wrote those words. You do understand the concept of 'duress' don't you? It's when someone is, for want of a better word, forced to make statements and do certain things that they otherwise would not do. They do this because they fear for their own safety and/or the safety of loved ones and friends.
To repeat Keyplus, Keith Moore's theories on the veracity of the embryonic theory contained within the Koran are not taught by any credible scientific body anywhere in the world. They are however, repeated ad-infinitum by pedallers of Islam such as yourself and others who, despite their apparent scientific credentials, bring science in disrepute by attempting to defend the spurious theories espoused by a man clearly under duress.
I see you're still ignoring me and demonstrating that you are an ignoramus in the process. Outstanding work.
Mike11111 - “There is but one compelling argument for the existence of God, as demonstrated in the manifestation of His son to the world, and that is that Naomi and Birdie deny it.”
What on earth are you attempting to achieve by your above post? It just makes you look both pathetic and vindictive. Your above statement makes no sense and it fails completely to contribute in any way to this thread.
Have you now become a troll?
What on earth are you attempting to achieve by your above post? It just makes you look both pathetic and vindictive. Your above statement makes no sense and it fails completely to contribute in any way to this thread.
Have you now become a troll?
What I hoped to achieve by my post was to take the p!ss out of sour-minded people like yourself and the other one. I am neither pathetic nor vindictive, merely a guy with a sense of humour, which I hope to enjoy for all eternity in the heavenly kingdom. Pity you and Moani won't be there, I'd have bought you a drink otherwise.
If we're meeting in heaven Mike, the first round is on me. And I'm as tight as a gnat's chuff.
Naomi and Birdie are discussing Mike. They don't agree with Keyplus and both of them, along with Mr McFroog, have provided an intelligent debate here in which Keyplus himself is playing a major role.
You, however, are just trolling. Your humour was personal and distracting.
Naomi and Birdie are discussing Mike. They don't agree with Keyplus and both of them, along with Mr McFroog, have provided an intelligent debate here in which Keyplus himself is playing a major role.
You, however, are just trolling. Your humour was personal and distracting.
Not really. If you said I that you would have to make some pretty big assumptions.
After all, you only saw me walking the street last night, you assumed the reason. I might have been on my way home from the cinema for instance.
I've only answered you because I think it's relevant to the discussion.
Evidence would have told you why I was walking the street.
My apologies to Naomi for the sidestep.
After all, you only saw me walking the street last night, you assumed the reason. I might have been on my way home from the cinema for instance.
I've only answered you because I think it's relevant to the discussion.
Evidence would have told you why I was walking the street.
My apologies to Naomi for the sidestep.
sandyRoe -- doesn't your refusal or inabiity to answer straight questions worry you? I know that if someone asked me a question about my atheism I'd be ashamed of myself at the very thought of merely ignoring it. I'd be only too aware of what an effect such evasion would have on my credibility. Best to answer up and put up with any resulting flak rather than run away and hide.
Mike11111 - “... What I hoped to achieve by my post was to take the p!ss out of sour-minded people like yourself and the other one...”
So it was your intention to deliberately insult two people who were conducting a rational debate with a another ABer for no other reason than your own satisfaction?
For your information, Wikipedia defines a troll as, "... someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response...". So your original post in this thread wasn't an example of trolling then? I'd be fascinated to hear why you think this isn't the case.
As for me being 'sour-minded' nothing could be further from the truth. I like a good laugh as much as the next person. The simple fact is that you dislike me. That's fine by me. I really could not care less so please go on disliking me but also please try to refrain from posting derogatory comments about me specifically which have nothing whatsoever to do with the matters being discussed.
Thanks.
So it was your intention to deliberately insult two people who were conducting a rational debate with a another ABer for no other reason than your own satisfaction?
For your information, Wikipedia defines a troll as, "... someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response...". So your original post in this thread wasn't an example of trolling then? I'd be fascinated to hear why you think this isn't the case.
As for me being 'sour-minded' nothing could be further from the truth. I like a good laugh as much as the next person. The simple fact is that you dislike me. That's fine by me. I really could not care less so please go on disliking me but also please try to refrain from posting derogatory comments about me specifically which have nothing whatsoever to do with the matters being discussed.
Thanks.
Latest Posts
Craig Williams, Surely His Political...
News5 mins ago
News5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Crosswords12 mins ago
Anyone Listening To Radio 5 Live.....
News14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.