Every living thing made from water.

islamispeace wrote:   The obvious conclusion is that humans are created from water and dust, among other things.

islamispeace wrote: Well, that would depend on whether people in that time period knew if water was an essential part of the human body and that it was one of the factors involved in creation.

I think I would find it harder to believe that there was ever a society that didn't know that water is essential to life.  And in what sense is it a scientific fact that we are made from dust??

By the way, in several other places the Quran says that we are made from male sperm -- but it never mentions the female ovum, which is at least as important.  It seems to me that the Quran's knowledge of human origins is spotty at best.

I think I would find it harder to believe that there was ever a society that didn't know that water is essential to life.  And in what sense is it a scientific fact that we are made from dust??

There is a big difference in knowing that water is essential for life and survival and in knowing that water was essential to man's creation.  I doubt that many people in those days knew, for instance, that the human body is almost 60% water.  Like I said, if you can demonstrate that people knew that man was created from water (amongst other things), then you would have a point to make. 

Man's creation from dust refers to the creation of Adam, who had no father or mother.  "Dust" does not mean the stuff you find in your house containing random particles.  Rather, it is a reference to man's origins from almost nothing.  Furthermore, the Quran states that Adam was also created from clay.  This goes back to my original post.  Just because the Quran says that man was created from water or dust or clay in one verse, does not mean that man's creation did not involve other elements or factors.

By the way, in several other places the Quran says that we are made from male sperm -- but it never mentions the female ovum, which is at least as important.  It seems to me that the Quran's knowledge of human origins is spotty at best.

Just because it does not mention the ovum does not mean the author of the Quran did not know that both male and female factors are involved.  I think it is safe to say that people in those times did know that in order to have a baby, a man needed to have sexual intercourse with a woman.  Right?  It was also understood that sperm was the "seed".  Furthermore, I am not sure if there was even an Arabic word in those times that could be used to refer to the "ovum".  There was a word, however, for sperm or semen which is "nut-fatan" or "semen-drop".  As you can see, there was a practical reason the Quran does not mention the ovum.  You also have to keep in mind that the first audience to hear the Quran were the Arabs, who were not exactly biologists. 

Excellent critique Ron.  I think you will find this is a common element in most of the "Quran does science" crowd's arguments.  They choose a word or two and interpret it in a very specific way to stuff it into a modern scientific definition and another couple of words will be defined as a metaphoric phrase and, of course, is not to be taken literally.