[myriam (OP)]

Hello there

I heard that some scientists have made a bacteria in  lab  and it was extremely difficult so can they reanimate dead organisms.

seems crazy!!

what do you think

[LeeE]

Funny co-incidence: I just bought a copy of Young Frankenstein yesterday.

When organisms die they start to deteriorate pretty quickly and undergo physiological changes, so while a recently dead organism might not look very different to a living one, at the microscopic level a lot of changes, causing permanent damage, will have already occurred.

[edited]

[myriam (OP)]

Thank you LeeE

Interesting

but I mean is there an original part in the body of mammals for example from which the body can be reanimated after its deterioration ?

[LeeE]

but I mean is there an original part in the body of mammals for example from which the body can be reanimated after its deterioration ?

I'm sorry, but I'm don't quite understand exactly what you mean there.

[Bored chemist]

In a sense there is and "original part". You could get any cell that's not too badly degraded and take the DNA from it and, in principle, clone the original organism.
However the clone wouldn't be exactly the same as the original and, in particular, it wouldn't have the memories of the original, nor things like resistance to disease.
(I have been vaccinated against tuberculosis, but a clone of me would have no immunity).
There's also the problem that cloning has a success rate that's practically zero.

[RD]

Organ / http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2828947.stm [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register] / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_transplant#Partial_face_transplant [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register] transplants are sort of "reanimation".

[myriam (OP)]

as far as I know there is that part of the body of mammals at the end of the vertebral column the is a small bone where all the genome  of the body is stored.
some scientist  has transplanted cells from that bone into a rat body i think , and has observed that this cell migrates to its original place on the vertebral column !!

but I mean is there an original part in the body of mammals for example from which the body can be reanimated after its deterioration ?

I'm sorry, but I'm don't quite understand exactly what you mean there.

[ricbritain]

The genome is present in each cell of the body, not just one.

[myriam (OP)]

we know that  ricbritain

I mean  from this part of the body you can reanimate the original body, not a copy of it.

it is as a central unit which can store even memories   

[Bored chemist]

If it were true that some little bit of the body stored all them memories then why is it that
Brain damage often results is lost memory.
and
Damage to other bits of the body generally doesn't lead to lost memory.

If (and it's a big "if") the body keeps a spare copy, why doesn't it ever get used?
It seems a bit silly to me.

[myriam (OP)]

no it is not silly trust me

and who tells that it can't be used , we just know an ε from what we see and touch , comparing our selves to the universe what could we say, what could we say?[] 

[Eric A. Taylor]

There was a really bad horror film about this made in the 80s (I think or maybe the 90s) called the re-animator Greats scene where a headless guy is feeling up the heroine while his severed head rolls his eyes around in a pan next to the girl.

[Eric A. Taylor]

Legally, at least in the United States, death is when brain activity comes to an end. This is called "brain death". "Life" is a very complex chemical reaction. In higher animals death is ALWAYS caused when the brain becomes so damaged it can no longer function. This usually happens due to lack of oxygen. Brains are very very oxygen hungry and become damaged as soon as it runs out.

The bodily damage is not caused by death, rather the damage leads to death.

[Bored chemist]

Before we go any further I think it falls to Myriam to provide some evidence for the claims that "from this part of the body you can reanimate the original body, not a copy of it.

it is as a central unit which can store even memories   ".
Without some evidence, that idea has nothing to do with science.

[myriam (OP)]

You are right Bored chemist I 've already mentioned  the experiment that has been done to prove this  but  I'll present it more explicitly

The experiment is to take some cells from  an very small bone situated in the end of the vertebral column  and transplant it in an other part of the body  head for example, the amazing result was that those Cells migrate always to there originale position : that small bone.

Also after death bone can be entirely degraded except that small bone which remain  very resistant so it can be the only source of DNA left

and the strongest proof is what was written in the holy book 'koran'  1400 years ago that dead bodies will be reanimated , brought to life again to be judged
 
So doing that experiment on that small bone helps us discover and  understand at the same time an unknown precious part of  our bodies


what do you think ?
 

[rosy]

and the strongest proof is what was written in the holy book 'koran'  1400 years ago that dead bodies will be reanimated , brought to life again to be judged

Ah.

what do you think ?

I think this is nonsense. (Declaration of lack-of-interest: I'm an atheist, and whilst some religious texts may have useful and interesting things to say about the human condition I don't consider any of them to have any more literal truth than the various legends of Robin Hood or King Arthur, if so much).

Can you point us to any evidence beyond your holy book? You talk about these experiments as if they had been carried out. When? By whom? Where are their results documented?

[imatfaal]

I think what BoredChemist was after was links to a scientific write up.  any amount of asserting an idea is not proof nor evidence (no matter where this is written) - what is required is a theory which predicts certain results and a series of repeatable experiments to test these results.  

through my scant knowledge of archaeology ( i am not even sure how to spell it) I believe that bones, tissue and especially teeth are all sources of dna after death - and have never heard of the coccyx being extraordinarily good.

[myriam (OP)]

all right then , I heard about that experiment 2 years ago at it really makes sense to me.. well, because  first I'm not an atheist and second because I don't judge any thing from the first sight
 
By posting this question I was wondering if you've ever heard about what I heard so try to understand this together []

[Eric A. Taylor]

You are right Bored chemist I 've already mentioned  the experiment that has been done to prove this  but  I'll present it more explicitly

The experiment is to take some cells from  an very small bone situated in the end of the vertebral column  and transplant it in an other part of the body  head for example, the amazing result was that those Cells migrate always to there originale position : that small bone.

Also after death bone can be entirely degraded except that small bone which remain  very resistant so it can be the only source of DNA left

and the strongest proof is what was written in the holy book 'koran'  1400 years ago that dead bodies will be reanimated , brought to life again to be judged
 
So doing that experiment on that small bone helps us discover and  understand at the same time an unknown precious part of  our bodies


what do you think ?
 

Our society has gotten into quite a bit of trouble taking religious text as scientific truth. It lead directly to the Dark Ages. Over 1000 years of scientific stagnation. Imagine we had landed on the moon in 969 rather than 1969, or have the atomic bomb invented in 945 rather than 1945. Where would we be today? Maybe we would all be air pollution by now. But just maybe we'd live in a very different world.

There has been quite a lot of change in technology in the 20th century. Imagine what life will be like in 2110....now try to imagine 3010! That's where we would be today had it not been for the Dark Ages....

[myriam (OP)]

You are right Bored chemist I 've already mentioned  the experiment that has been done to prove this  but  I'll present it more explicitly

The experiment is to take some cells from  an very small bone situated in the end of the vertebral column  and transplant it in an other part of the body  head for example, the amazing result was that those Cells migrate always to there originale position : that small bone.

Also after death bone can be entirely degraded except that small bone which remain  very resistant so it can be the only source of DNA left

and the strongest proof is what was written in the holy book 'koran'  1400 years ago that dead bodies will be reanimated , brought to life again to be judged
 
So doing that experiment on that small bone helps us discover and  understand at the same time an unknown precious part of  our bodies


what do you think ?
 

Our society has gotten into quite a bit of trouble taking religious text as scientific truth. It lead directly to the Dark Ages. Over 1000 years of scientific stagnation. Imagine we had landed on the moon in 969 rather than 1969, or have the atomic bomb invented in 945 rather than 1945. Where would we be today? Maybe we would all be air pollution by now. But just maybe we'd live in a very different world.

There has been quite a lot of change in technology in the 20th century. Imagine what life will be like in 2110....now try to imagine 3010! That's where we would be today had it not been for the Dark Ages....

I think that the society which has gotten into quite a bit of trouble taking religious text as scientific truth is a society where its members have missed a lot of useful  things for the human Life given by religious text  just because of 2 things :
-They are being more and more materialistic  so they rely more on the  technology results and don't care about what was said before 1400 by faithful source , that's why we heare a lot of  ...religion = I'm not interested, it is very normal since the happiness has a limited meaning  to him
or
- a Big misunderstanding of the religious text   

[Bored chemist]

You are right Bored chemist I 've already mentioned  the experiment that has been done to prove this  but  I'll present it more explicitly

The experiment is to take some cells from  an very small bone situated in the end of the vertebral column  and transplant it in an other part of the body  head for example, the amazing result was that those Cells migrate always to there originale position : that small bone.

Also after death bone can be entirely degraded except that small bone which remain  very resistant so it can be the only source of DNA left

and the strongest proof is what was written in the holy book 'koran'  1400 years ago that dead bodies will be reanimated , brought to life again to be judged
 
So doing that experiment on that small bone helps us discover and  understand at the same time an unknown precious part of  our bodies


what do you think ?
 

Frankly I think the "evidence" is in two parts, the first is hearsay and wouldn't be admitted as evidence in any court and the second is an odd deduction based on what I consider to be a fairy tale anyway.
If there were a God who wanted to resurrect us all, why would He start with the coccyx?

Incidentally, Re. "I think that the society which has gotten into quite a bit of trouble taking religious text as scientific truth is a society where its members have missed a lot of useful  things for the human Life given by religious text "
Name three.

[myriam (OP)]

You are right Bored chemist I 've already mentioned  the experiment that has been done to prove this  but  I'll present it more explicitly

The experiment is to take some cells from  an very small bone situated in the end of the vertebral column  and transplant it in an other part of the body  head for example, the amazing result was that those Cells migrate always to there originale position : that small bone.

Also after death bone can be entirely degraded except that small bone which remain  very resistant so it can be the only source of DNA left

and the strongest proof is what was written in the holy book 'koran'  1400 years ago that dead bodies will be reanimated , brought to life again to be judged
 
So doing that experiment on that small bone helps us discover and  understand at the same time an unknown precious part of  our bodies


what do you think ?
 

Frankly I think the "evidence" is in two parts, the first is hearsay and wouldn't be admitted as evidence in any court and the second is an odd deduction based on what I consider to be a fairy tale anyway.
If there were a God who wanted to resurrect us all, why would He start with the coccyx?

Incidentally, Re. "I think that the society which has gotten into quite a bit of trouble taking religious text as scientific truth is a society where its members have missed a lot of useful  things for the human Life given by religious text "
Name three.

All we are trying to do here is an attempt to understand, the truth is there anyway
and see it or not  depends on us actually.
reanimation will start from the coccyx or any other part of the body isn't a problem for the Creator , cause he how tells us "tales" in all his holly books brings the sunlight from Est not the west, which  of these tow phenomena seems more complecated according to you

[norcalclimber]

You are right Bored chemist I 've already mentioned  the experiment that has been done to prove this  but  I'll present it more explicitly

The experiment is to take some cells from  an very small bone situated in the end of the vertebral column  and transplant it in an other part of the body  head for example, the amazing result was that those Cells migrate always to there originale position : that small bone.

Also after death bone can be entirely degraded except that small bone which remain  very resistant so it can be the only source of DNA left

and the strongest proof is what was written in the holy book 'koran'  1400 years ago that dead bodies will be reanimated , brought to life again to be judged
 
So doing that experiment on that small bone helps us discover and  understand at the same time an unknown precious part of  our bodies


what do you think ?
 

Frankly I think the "evidence" is in two parts, the first is hearsay and wouldn't be admitted as evidence in any court and the second is an odd deduction based on what I consider to be a fairy tale anyway.
If there were a God who wanted to resurrect us all, why would He start with the coccyx?

Incidentally, Re. "I think that the society which has gotten into quite a bit of trouble taking religious text as scientific truth is a society where its members have missed a lot of useful  things for the human Life given by religious text "
Name three.

All we are trying to do here is an attempt to understand, the truth is there anyway
and see it or not  depends on us actually.
reanimation will start from the coccyx or any other part of the body isn't a problem for the Creator , cause he how tells us "tales" in all his holly books brings the sunlight from Est not the west, which  of these tow phenomena seems more complecated according to you

Um.... where to start?

The sun rising in the East is simply due to the rotation of the Earth.  If it was spinning the other way the sun would rise in the West.  This doesn't really seem complicated to me.  Reanimation from the coccyx though?

[myriam (OP)]

You are right Bored chemist I 've already mentioned  the experiment that has been done to prove this  but  I'll present it more explicitly

The experiment is to take some cells from  an very small bone situated in the end of the vertebral column  and transplant it in an other part of the body  head for example, the amazing result was that those Cells migrate always to there originale position : that small bone.

Also after death bone can be entirely degraded except that small bone which remain  very resistant so it can be the only source of DNA left

and the strongest proof is what was written in the holy book 'koran'  1400 years ago that dead bodies will be reanimated , brought to life again to be judged
 
So doing that experiment on that small bone helps us discover and  understand at the same time an unknown precious part of  our bodies


what do you think ?
 

Frankly I think the "evidence" is in two parts, the first is hearsay and wouldn't be admitted as evidence in any court and the second is an odd deduction based on what I consider to be a fairy tale anyway.
If there were a God who wanted to resurrect us all, why would He start with the coccyx?

Incidentally, Re. "I think that the society which has gotten into quite a bit of trouble taking religious text as scientific truth is a society where its members have missed a lot of useful  things for the human Life given by religious text "
Name three.

All we are trying to do here is an attempt to understand, the truth is there anyway
and see it or not  depends on us actually.
reanimation will start from the coccyx or any other part of the body isn't a problem for the Creator , cause he how tells us "tales" in all his holly books brings the sunlight from Est not the west, which  of these tow phenomena seems more complecated according to you

Um.... where to start?

The sun rising in the East is simply due to the rotation of the Earth.  If it was spinning the other way the sun would rise in the West.  This doesn't really seem complicated to me.  Reanimation from the coccyx though?

right norcalclimber, but if you dig  a littel bit deeper in the question you'll realise that the tow components of the question are earth and sun and that what I was waiting to be taken into considerations , so if we wanna make it more clear , what is the more complicated to do creating a sun and an earth or reanimating a dead creature?
 

[Bored chemist]

"All we are trying to do here is an attempt to understand, the truth is there anyway "
And we do that by looking at the world, not by reading an old book.

[myriam (OP)]

"All we are trying to do here is an attempt to understand, the truth is there anyway "
And we do that by looking at the world, not by reading an old book.

you mean by  looking at the world, human scientific papers are true but the creator of those scientists is telling as some tales?

[norcalclimber]

"All we are trying to do here is an attempt to understand, the truth is there anyway "
And we do that by looking at the world, not by reading an old book.

you mean by  looking at the world, human scientific papers are true but the creator of those scientists is telling as some tales?

The thing is, the scientific papers are verifiable.  And so are those "holy books", and when we look at the "holy books" we see that they are often false, misleading, heavily edited, and sometimes just plain silly.  Since none of them have actually made any prophecies which came true (I am extremely familiar with religion), they really have no leg to stand on except faith. 

I have no problem with people wanting to be religious, I have some very close friends who are.  But they don't try to make it into something its not; religion can provide some good advice on how to live your life, but it is not scientific in any way and if you try to make it into something it isn't you will just end up deluding yourself.

[norcalclimber]

right norcalclimber, but if you dig  a littel bit deeper in the question you'll realise that the tow components of the question are earth and sun and that what I was waiting to be taken into considerations , so if we wanna make it more clear , what is the more complicated to do creating a sun and an earth or reanimating a dead creature?
 

The genesis of the sun and earth is inevitable, not miraculous.  So it doesn't seem awfully complicated to me, but reanimating something which has suffered massive cell death seems extremely complicated.

[myriam (OP)]

right norcalclimber, but if you dig  a littel bit deeper in the question you'll realise that the tow components of the question are earth and sun and that what I was waiting to be taken into considerations , so if we wanna make it more clear , what is the more complicated to do creating a sun and an earth or reanimating a dead creature?
 

The genesis of the sun and earth is inevitable, not miraculous.  So it doesn't seem awfully complicated to me, but reanimating something which has suffered massive cell death seems extremely complicated.

inevitable  and not complected you said !! and the planets movements are also not complected you think , I wish seeing an astronomer replying on this supposition 

[norcalclimber]

right norcalclimber, but if you dig  a littel bit deeper in the question you'll realise that the tow components of the question are earth and sun and that what I was waiting to be taken into considerations , so if we wanna make it more clear , what is the more complicated to do creating a sun and an earth or reanimating a dead creature?
 

The genesis of the sun and earth is inevitable, not miraculous.  So it doesn't seem awfully complicated to me, but reanimating something which has suffered massive cell death seems extremely complicated.

inevitable  and not complected you said !! and the planets movements are also not complected you think , I wish seeing an astronomer replying on this supposition 

Let me see if I can put this a little better.  I saw a youtube video which I thought made an excellent point(can't find it now) about the "fine-tuning" argument which I think applies here.

Take a frying pan, now pour a big pile of salt in it.  Each grain of salt is a cube, with a unique orientation.  The odds of getting that particular orientation for every single cube is astronomical.  And every time you do this experiment, the odds of getting that specific result will be so low as to be virtually impossible.  Trying to define the exact position and orientation of each grain of salt would be extremely complicated, even though the event which brought about the pile of salt was very simple.

So yes, an astronomer defining specifics about the orbit of earth and the planets and so on may find a lot of work.  But the laws of physics means it is inevitable that billions of solar systems will be created in our universe.  Also, all the variables which needed to occur to allow life to exist on Earth may seem incredible, but with so many solar systems it is also probably inevitable.

[Bored chemist]

The first astronomers to work out the basics have been dead for centuries.

[myriam (OP)]

At last the human body is no more than several kgs of soil, water and some minerals in the contrary of a planet's composition.. in addition, and logically, reanimating a dead body is not more difficult than creating it for its Creator.
The difficulty that we are talking about here may have not the same exact meaning as that of the Creator    who knows every think.
I think that as a  human beings and looking to the limits of our brains, the only thing that we have to say is the Creator is too powerful because he is really, there is no doubt about it!

[BenV]

I don't believe in a creator, so I have strong doubts about the power of one.  But this is an irrelevant line of discussion - there is an interesting scientific angle to discuss here:

What's stopping us from re-starting organs/tissues/cells? Is it simply the damage that occurs due to lack of oxygen/nutrients?

[Bored chemist]

Myriam,
You are quite right. Since any God would be able to recreate us just as easily as He created us in the first place He wouldn't need any odd store of memories stuck in a tail bone.

Why did you suppose there was one?

Of course, from my point of view He is a fairy story, but that's not the point. Your view isn't even internally consistent.

[myriam (OP)]

Myriam,
You are quite right. Since any God would be able to recreate us just as easily as He created us in the first place He wouldn't need any odd store of memories stuck in a tail bone.

Why did you suppose there was one?

Of course, from my point of view He is a fairy story, but that's not the point. Your view isn't even internally consistent.

you know, I strongly beleive that science is a way to explore what is hidden and, yes, no one can diny the natural phenomena discovered and understood via the Science and that was mentioned in holly book before even the understanding of the word mentioned ; take the example of 'atome' written before 1400 years ago in the holly book.
I think If a scienctist is willing to discover a new thing, he has to forget the world 'NO' and go ahead with experiments , evidence showing up  can make him understand things more and more and that is the difference between mankind and the other creatures it's knowledge, evolution and amelioration.

I beleive that there is  something spetial in that bone, something that will be one day understood. it is not my field of research, and I'd like to hear that some one is gonna work on it

[imatfaal]

you know, I strongly beleive that science is a way to explore what is hidden and, yes, no one can diny the natural phenomena discovered and understood via the Science and that was mentioned in holly book before even the understanding of the word mentioned ; take the example of 'atome' written before 1400 years ago in the holly book. 

Myriam – please do not co-opt the idea of the atom to bolster the reputation of a holy book written in the first millennium CE – the Greek philosophers were discussing the un-cuttable atom ἄτομος as a building block of nature well over a thousand years before the Koran.  Although Western science has a huge amount to thank the Arabic and Muslim scholars for, not least for maintaining the knowledge of the ancient Greeks, it is disingenuous to claim that much, if any, modern science is prefigured in any holy book of the first millennium.  Matthew

[echochartruse]

Cryonics
    The emerging medical technology of cryopreserving humans and animals with the intention of future revival. Researchers in the field seek to apply the results of many sciences, including cryobiology, cryogenics, rheology, emergency medicine, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenics [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

we are working on it.

[myriam (OP)]

"All we are trying to do here is an attempt to understand, the truth is there anyway "
And we do that by looking at the world, not by reading an old book.

you mean by  looking at the world, human scientific papers are true but the creator of those scientists is telling as some tales?

The thing is, the scientific papers are verifiable.  And so are those "holy books", and when we look at the "holy books" we see that they are often false, misleading, heavily edited, and sometimes just plain silly.  Since none of them have actually made any prophecies which came true (I am extremely familiar with religion), they really have no leg to stand on except faith. 

I have no problem with people wanting to be religious, I have some very close friends who are.  But they don't try to make it into something its not; religion can provide some good advice on how to live your life, but it is not scientific in any way and if you try to make it into something it isn't you will just end up deluding yourself.

I NEED TO KNOW IF YOU HAVE RED THE KORAN.

[myriam (OP)]

you know, I strongly beleive that science is a way to explore what is hidden and, yes, no one can diny the natural phenomena discovered and understood via the Science and that was mentioned in holly book before even the understanding of the word mentioned ; take the example of 'atome' written before 1400 years ago in the holly book. 

Myriam – please do not co-opt the idea of the atom to bolster the reputation of a holy book written in the first millennium CE – the Greek philosophers were discussing the un-cuttable atom ἄτομος as a building block of nature well over a thousand years before the Koran.  Although Western science has a huge amount to thank the Arabic and Muslim scholars for, not least for maintaining the knowledge of the ancient Greeks, it is disingenuous to claim that much, if any, modern science is prefigured in any holy book of the first millennium.  Matthew

oh please don't tell me that  you know what was written in the koran !

[Bored chemist]

I read about a third of the Koran (as an English translation) and got bored.
It kept repeating bits. Perhaps it's poetic in the original, but it's just dull in English.

I don't need to know what was written in the Koran to know that atoms were written about ages before the Koran was written; I just need to know that one book is older than another.
This guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leucippus [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]
predates the Koran by roughly a thousand years.

BTW, re.
"I beleive that there is  something spetial in that bone,"
Reality neither knows nor cares what you believe.

[myriam (OP)]

thank you to share your point of view with us []

[imatfaal]

Myriam - I have read the Koran (and the Bible/Torah, some of the Upanishads, and quite a bit of Marx) but that has no bearing on the fact that the ancient Greek and Hindu philosophers were discussing the possible atomic nature of matter a thousand years prior to the dictation of the Koran. 

Before expanding on the contents of the Koran (which may or may not contain insight into scientific problems) please explain the time-line and how a book written in the early 6th century CE can prefigure writings of Leucippus and Democritus (in the 5th century BCE) and Hindu metaphysical writings from the Bhagavad Gita through to Jainism (from 6th to 1st century BCE)

Matthew

[myriam (OP)]

Myriam - I have read the Koran (and the Bible/Torah, some of the Upanishads, and quite a bit of Marx) but that has no bearing on the fact that the ancient Greek and Hindu philosophers were discussing the possible atomic nature of matter a thousand years prior to the dictation of the
Koran. 

Before expanding on the contents of the Koran (which may or may not contain insight into scientific problems) please explain the time-line and how a book written in the early 6th century CE can prefigure writings of Leucippus and Democritus (in the 5th century BCE) and Hindu metaphysical writings from the Bhagavad Gita through to Jainism (from 6th to 1st century BCE)

Matthew

it is simply because  it is a Holly book not invented by  any human being , it contains the words of the CREATORS who created every thing, the messenger is just a messenger  telling the humanity the message from the Creator
in addition to the word 'atome' in koran , there are so many other things that science has just discovered now .....

[BenV]

All holy books were written by people.  If you choose to believe otherwise, then nothing we can say here will help.  Looking back and attepting to find scientific references in ancient books is a fools errand, as it's easy to reinterpret something in the light of new knowledge.  It would have to be really very specific to be of any worth.

[norcalclimber]

Myriam - I have read the Koran (and the Bible/Torah, some of the Upanishads, and quite a bit of Marx) but that has no bearing on the fact that the ancient Greek and Hindu philosophers were discussing the possible atomic nature of matter a thousand years prior to the dictation of the
Koran. 

Before expanding on the contents of the Koran (which may or may not contain insight into scientific problems) please explain the time-line and how a book written in the early 6th century CE can prefigure writings of Leucippus and Democritus (in the 5th century BCE) and Hindu metaphysical writings from the Bhagavad Gita through to Jainism (from 6th to 1st century BCE)

Matthew

it is simply because  it is a Holly book not invented by  any human being , it contains the words of the CREATORS who created every thing, the messenger is just a messenger  telling the humanity the message from the Creator
in addition to the word 'atome' in koran , there are so many other things that science has just discovered now .....

The Quran is a collection of writings from many different people, which were compiled, then edited and revised for a couple hundred years after Muhammad died. 

It has already been shown to you that the word "atom" did not originate with the Quran.  Can you provide anything which is actually there first that science has just discovered?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_wrote_the_Quran [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]  shows first the answer from a Muslim source, then follows with a pretty effective rebuttal.

[myriam (OP)]

All holy books were written by people.  If you choose to believe otherwise, then nothing we can say here will help.  Looking back and attepting to find scientific references in ancient books is a fools errand, as it's easy to reinterpret something in the light of new knowledge.  It would have to be really very specific to be of any worth.

saying that "All holly books were written by people" means that those peole needed some ink to write down what messengers were telling them what they were recieving from the one only God  but it  means also  4  additional possibilities:

1: you have nerver red a Holly book as skillful religious did
2: you have red the koran but you have never understood it
3: you  have red all the Holly books exept the koran
4: you have red and understood the meanings of the koran but you wanna diny it to your self and to others too.

[norcalclimber]

All holy books were written by people.  If you choose to believe otherwise, then nothing we can say here will help.  Looking back and attepting to find scientific references in ancient books is a fools errand, as it's easy to reinterpret something in the light of new knowledge.  It would have to be really very specific to be of any worth.

saying that "All holly books were written by people" means that those peole needed some ink to write down what messengers were telling them what they were recieving from the one only God  but it  means also  4  additional possibilities:

1: you have nerver red a Holly book as skillful religious did
2: you have red the koran but you have never understood it
3: you  have red all the Holly books exept the koran
4: you have red and understood the meanings of the koran but you wanna diny it to your self and to others too.

Actually, there is another possibility:  The Quran, along with all other "holy" books, was actually written and created and edited and revised by people and for people, with absolutely no messenger or god or anything supernatural whatsoever involved or existing in any way.

Again, you claimed there are a great many things which were mentioned in the Quran and science is only now discovering.  What are they?

[myriam (OP)]

All holy books were written by people.  If you choose to believe otherwise, then nothing we can say here will help.  Looking back and attepting to find scientific references in ancient books is a fools errand, as it's easy to reinterpret something in the light of new knowledge.  It would have to be really very specific to be of any worth.

saying that "All holly books were written by people" means that those peole needed some ink to write down what messengers were telling them what they were recieving from the one only God  but it  means also  4  additional possibilities:

1: you have nerver red a Holly book as skillful religious did
2: you have red the koran but you have never understood it
3: you  have red all the Holly books exept the koran
4: you have red and understood the meanings of the koran but you wanna diny it to your self and to others too.

Actually, there is another possibility:  The Quran, along with all other "holy" books, was actually written and created and edited and revised by people and for people, with absolutely no messenger or god or anything supernatural whatsoever involved or existing in any way.

Again, you claimed there are a great many things which were mentioned in the Quran and science is only now discovering.  What are they?

here is a small example

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/215/ [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

[myriam (OP)]

http://www.allahsword.com/miraclesquran.html [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

what do you think?

[norcalclimber]

Both of those links only seem true to people who either already believe or want to believe.  Vague statements, combined with flat out lies.  Let us look at just one of the examples:

The miracle of embryonic development is mentioned in the Quran in such minute detail, much of which was unknown to scientists until only recently.  It mentions the first stages of life after conception, the second stage of life after conception, and witnesses of scientists about these scientific facts of the Quran.

“We created man from an extract of clay.  Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed.  Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)…” (Quran 23:12-14)

Where is the supposed minute detail which was unknown until recently?  Humans and animals have been dissected for thousands of years, at every stage of development.  Brain surgery was performed by ancient Egyptians, and those supposedly minute details have probably been known for even longer. 

Every example I have looked at in those two links you provided was the same, and only shows that there must be absolutely nothing there if they have to resort to such lengths to try to "prove" it.

People can be scientists and religious at the same time, they just need to accept the fact that their holy books could at best be inspired by god and written by man which makes them subject to error.  IMHO.