Modern Science proves the Authenticity of the Glorious Qur'an

[JMorris]

when has the earth ever shook and not been an earthquake? can you point to a single instance in history (and i mean actual history and not mythology) where this has ever once happened?

and milk and a milkshake are two distinctly different things. a shaking earth is an earthquake. unless you can show even a single instance in which it wasnt?

 

[Fatihah]

when has the earth ever shook and not been an earthquake? can you point to a single instance in history (and i mean actual history and not mythology) where this has ever once happened?

and milk and a milkshake are two distinctly different things. a shaking earth is an earthquake. unless you can show even a single instance in which it wasnt?

Response: This is all true. But what's being done is that people are trying to make it seem as if the qur'an is saying that mountains prevent all earthquakes but it does not say that. There will be earthquakes regardless. What the qur'an states is the scientific fact that mountains prevents quakes in the earth that will move us. There is a difference. The plates in the earth's crust are constantly moving and shifting and the mountains play a role in holding them in place so that when they shift and rub against each other the earth does not continuously move and shake us. But despite all of this, it does not prevent earthquakes completely. This is the point. It's not a complete and permanant prevention of all earthquakes but mountains do prevent some of the quakes in the earth. This science is called isostasy, a science that was discovered recently with advanced technology but was revealed 1400+ years ago with no advanced technology, making it a qur'anic miracle.

 

[McBell]

Response: It does to those who are open minded and is reasonable.

Only if by "open minded and reasonable" you really mean "already inclined to believe Islam"...
And going by the way you have been redefining words in this thread, I would not be surprised if that was the case.

 

[McBell]

Response: This is all true. But what's being done is that people are trying to make it seem as if the qur'an is saying that mountains prevent all earthquakes but it does not say that. There will be earthquakes regardless. What the qur'an states is the scientific fact that mountains prevents quakes in the earth that will move us. There is a difference. The plates in the earth's crust are constantly moving and shifting and the mountains play a role in holding them in place so that when they shift and rub against each other the earth does not continuously move and shake us. But despite all of this, it does not prevent earthquakes completely. This is the point. It's not a complete and permanant prevention of all earthquakes but mountains do prevent some of the quakes in the earth. This science is called isostasy, a science that was discovered recently with advanced technology but was revealed 1400+ years ago with no advanced technology, making it a qur'anic miracle.

Wheres that damn pontoon, Fatihah's bullshiit has gotten far to deep for a mere rubber raft.

 

[painted wolf]

Response: This is all true. But what's being done is that people are trying to make it seem as if the qur'an is saying that mountains prevent all earthquakes but it does not say that. There will be earthquakes regardless. What the qur'an states is the scientific fact that mountains prevents quakes in the earth that will move us. There is a difference. The plates in the earth's crust are constantly moving and shifting and the mountains play a role in holding them in place so that when they shift and rub against each other the earth does not continuously move and shake us.

But the earth is continuously moving... and shaking.

But despite all of this, it does not prevent earthquakes completely. This is the point. It's not a complete and permanant prevention of all earthquakes but mountains do prevent some of the quakes in the earth. This science is called isostasy, a science that was discovered recently with advanced technology but was revealed 1400+ years ago with no advanced technology, making it a qur'anic miracle.

That is not isostasy!
Isostasy is the equal distribution of mass and how the land bends to deal with it.

wa:do

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Only if by "open minded and reasonable" you really mean "already inclined to believe Islam"...
And going by the way you have been redefining words in this thread, I would not be surprised if that was the case.

- followed by -

That is not isostasy!
Isostasy is the equal distribution of mass and how the land bends to deal with it.

After reading your post, Mestemia, I was going to go back and look for an instance where Fatihah had misused a word. To my good fortune, I only had to read the very next post, from Painted Wolf.

 

[YmirGF]

On the contrary, mountains do in fact hold the land in place.

Wrong. Mountains are continually moving, granted at a glacial pace, but nonetheless, they are always in motion, due to the fact that the tectonic plates are always in continuous motion and the mountains are above those moving plates.

For example, if two plates are sliding side by side, the mountains are sliding with them and aren't really holding anything. For example, in the Great Rift Valley, mountain ranges that use to be together are now getting further apart, so that tends to blow this thinking of "holding the land in place" right out of the water.

I wrote an elaborate allusion here, but in so doing realized that the mountains aren't holding anything together at all. It is the plates beneath the mountains that are the key. The pressure they exert on each other is what holds them together... the mountains are merely a by-product of the tectonic interaction, so it is absolutely false to say that mountains are holding the land together because it is the forward momentum of the plates that holds them together. In a very real sense, mountains are only the smoke from the gun.

Once the mountains are formed, it holds the plates together at the conjunction of the collision, preventing the earth from shaking.

No they don't, Fatihah. The mountains are superfluous results of tectonic interaction. It is the force of the plates acting on each other that "holds them together"... the mountains are just along for the ride, as it were.

Think of two huge rectangular buses, parked nose to nose and then have both accelerate into each other. Metal will bend due to the pressure that will build up, but the bent metal is not what is holding the trucks together. It is their forward momentum that is holding them together. Now think of those tectonic plates - so simple.

When the Qur’an refers to mountains preventing the earth from shaking, it is speaking in this way. It is not referring to "earthquakes".

It doesn't really matter how the Qur'an is interpreted, it is flat out wrong.

And yes, because a portion of the mountain is under the earth's surface, it does act as "pegs".

It doesn't matter how much of the mountain is below the earth's surface, Fatihah. The mountains have jack squat to do with what is going on here.

So the bigger question is, how did the Qur’an mention this scientific fact 1400 years ago when this knowledge was not yet known?

That would be because of junk science that doesn't actually know what it is talking about, Fatihah. Still, it isn't a bad description coming from a primitive 7th century perspective. Muhammad looked at his tent pegs and then at mountains. So simple... but ultimately... wrong.

Don't even get me going about volcano's, lol.

 

[Fatihah]

Only if by "open minded and reasonable" you really mean "already inclined to believe Islam"...
And going by the way you have been redefining words in this thread, I would not be surprised if that was the case.

Response: Only according to your definition.

 

[Fatihah]

Wheres that damn pontoon, Fatihah's bullshiit has gotten far to deep for a mere rubber raft.

Response: If this is your best rebuttle, then your words alone are witness to the scientific miracle of the qur'an.

 

[Fatihah]

But the earth is continuously moving... and shaking.

Response: I never said it doesn't.

Quote: painted wolf
That is not isostasy!
Isostasy is the equal distribution of mass and how the land bends to deal with it.

Response: And this process forms mountains.

 

[Fatihah]

- followed by -


After reading your post, Mestemia, I was going to go back and look for an instance where Fatihah had misused a word. To my good fortune, I only had to read the very next post, from Painted Wolf.

Response: And if you think that the word was misused than you yourself need to provide the definition and explain it's misuse because if you knew what isostasy was, you would realize how illogical your statement is.

 

[Fatihah]

Wrong. Mountains are continually moving, granted at a glacial pace, but nonetheless, they are always in motion, due to the fact that the tectonic plates are always in continuous motion and the mountains are above those moving plates.



For example, if two plates are sliding side by side, the mountains are sliding with them and aren't really holding anything. For example, in the Great Rift Valley, mountain ranges that use to be together are now getting further apart, so that tends to blow this thinking of "holding the land in place" right out of the water.[/COLOR]

I wrote an elaborate allusion here, but in so doing realized that the mountains aren't holding anything together at all. It is the plates beneath the mountains that are the key. The pressure they exert on each other is what holds them together... the mountains are merely a by-product of the tectonic interaction, so it is absolutely false to say that mountains are holding the land together because it is the forward momentum of the plates that holds them together. In a very real sense, mountains are only the smoke from the gun.

Response: Just because the mountains are moving does not mean that they are not holding the earth together. I can hold two objects together and move at the same time. So can anyone else. If you can't, that's your issue. But don't make it seem impossible because it's not possible for you.

Quote: YmirGF
No they don't, Fatihah. The mountains are superfluous results of tectonic interaction. It is the force of the plates acting on each other that "holds them together"... the mountains are just along for the ride, as it were.

Think of two huge rectangular buses, parked nose to nose and then have both accelerate into each other. Metal will bend due to the pressure that will build up, but the bent metal is not what is holding the trucks together. It is their forward momentum that is holding them together. Now think of those tectonic plates - so simple.

It doesn't really matter how the Qur'an is interpreted, it is flat out wrong.

It doesn't matter how much of the mountain is below the earth's surface, Fatihah. The mountains have jack squat to do with what is going on here.


That would be because of junk science that doesn't actually know what it is talking about, Fatihah. Still, it isn't a bad description coming from a primitive 7th century perspective. Muhammad looked at his tent pegs and then at mountains. So simple... but ultimately... wrong.

Don't even get me going about volcano's, lol.

Response: Many statements. Where's the proof? And I sincerely hope that you were joking about tectonic plates not being held together by mountains because if you aren't, well that just goes to show how much you know. Perhaps you should try looking it up before you make a response. You'll see the error in your statement. Hopefully your humble enough to admit it.

 

[YmirGF]

Just because the mountains are moving does not mean that they are not holding the earth together. I can hold two objects together and move at the same time. So can anyone else. If you can't, that's your issue. But don't make it seem impossible because it's not possible for you.

Fatihah, that has got to be the dumbest answer I have heard since our discussion about the Big Bang.

Many statements. Where's the proof? And I sincerely hope that you were joking about tectonic plates not being held together by mountains because if you aren't, well that just goes to show how much you know. Perhaps you should try looking it up before you make a response. You'll see the error in your statement. Hopefully your humble enough to admit it.

Oh good grief, Fatihah. Don't you think it would improve your position is you flat out showed me where I am wrong? Heck, I am not a geoligist for pity sakes. All I did was visualize the tectonic plates in my rather small brain and observed what happened in various collisions. Simply do me the favor of showing me where I am wrong. Like, c'mon, this is an Internet forum, lol. If you are so sure of yourself take your case to the Geological Society of America and see how far you get. I am quite sure they will be as impressed by your arguments as I am.

 

[Fatihah]

Fatihah, that has got to be the dumbest answer I have heard since our discussion about the Big Bang.
Response: Nothing to refute? That only shows who has the dumb answer. Yes, the truth is hard to refute.

Quote: YmirGF
Oh good grief, Fatihah. Don't you think it would improve your position is you flat out showed me where I am wrong? Heck, I am not a geoligist for pity sakes. All I did was visualize the tectonic plates in my rather small brain and observed what happened in various collisions. Simply do me the favor of showing me where I am wrong. Like, c'mon, this is an Internet forum, lol. If you are so sure of yourself take your case to the Geological Society of America and see how far you get. I am quite sure they will be as impressed by your arguments as I am.

Response: What would be reasonable is for you to speak of what you know, not to visualize things in your brain and come up with a conclusion and expect me or anyone else to correct you. It was you who responded to a post calling what I said to be wrong which brought up my response in the first place. So to say that my position would be improved if I were to show you how you're wrong is just plain hypocritical when you haven't done the same when calling me wrong.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Response: If this is your best rebuttle, then your words alone are witness to the scientific miracle of the qur'an.

Which, coincidentally, would be the best evidence you all have put forward so far, in this thread.

 

[YmirGF]

Nothing to refute? That only shows who has the dumb answer. Yes, the truth is hard to refute.

I thought your example was pathetic because it is unlikely that any two plates are moving precisely the same speed and direction. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would honestly like to see it.

What would be reasonable is for you to speak of what you know, not to visualize things in your brain and come up with a conclusion and expect me or anyone else to correct you. It was you who responded to a post calling what I said to be wrong which brought up my response in the first place. So to say that my position would be improved if I were to show you how you're wrong is just plain hypocritical when you haven't done the same when calling me wrong.

But, Fatihah, in the post I dissected you did not offer any proof whatsoever. Deep down inside you know that a team of qualified geologists could destroy your argument in a relative heartbeat. So what is the point? Doesn't it strike you as odd to give laypeople the third degree without heading straight to the authorities who can satisfactorily answer your questions?

When it gets right down to this, this whole argument goes back to the alleged credibility of Muhammad. That is all that this is about.

What would be reasonable is for you to speak of what you know, not to visualize things in your brain and come up with a conclusion and expect me or anyone else to correct you.

Yes, heaven forbid people actually think things through, eh or dare to use their imagination like a computer simulator. What was Einstein thinking when he was pondering over his silly idea of Relativity? What is Stephen Hawking thinking when he imagines what happens within a black hole or during the Big Bang? You see, Fatihah, both these great men, who are far, FAR more brilliant than a rube such as I, took a crazy idea and then set about proving it. It they had stuck to what they knew we wouldn't know who they are today.

 

[McBell]

Response: Only according to your definition.

Response: If this is your best rebuttle, then your words alone are witness to the scientific miracle of the qur'an.

ROTFLMFAO

Rather scary how the more you are proven wrong the more you think it shows you are right.

And here I thought Christianity had the monopoly on that particular attitude.

 

[darkendless]

Wrong. Mountains are continually moving, granted at a glacial pace, but nonetheless, they are always in motion, due to the fact that the tectonic plates are always in continuous motion and the mountains are above those moving plates.

Perhaps you'd like to demonstrate your knowledge of plate tectonics and geology by explaining to me why the tectonic plates move in the first place.

Also are you aware that not all mountains are caused by plate tectonics? I don't know if you know of the city Auckland in New Zealand, but its about 150km away from a plate and there are mountains caused by volcanic hot spots everywhere???

Think of two huge rectangular buses, parked nose to nose and then have both accelerate into each other. Metal will bend due to the pressure that will build up, but the bent metal is not what is holding the trucks together. It is their forward momentum that is holding them together. Now think of those tectonic plates - so simple.

Oh jesus. Unfortunately its not quite as simple as your example. In an ideal world yes, sure, but for one plates are not rectangular and the pressure they exert on each other is not quite so straightforward. You're forgetting that between the plates is a lot of soft, plastic material down the bottom, and hard rock towards the top. This is because below the plates is the mantle which is made up of material less dense than the plate itself. As a result, rediculous amounts of pressure build up in these areas, which can cause a multitude of different interactions. The soft material is forced towards the surface which is called uplift. Now, depending on the net pressures involved, the Material will either (usually) spread or lift. Under the sea is where we see a lot of spreading due to volcanic uplift. Now this is not to say both outcomes cannot exist at the same time. As we know plates are not consistent, so the plates can cause spreading and uplift at the same time.

I can go all day. Just keep in mind that geology is not like doing mathematics out of a book. Its unpredictable, and is extremely complex due to the diversity of the tectonic plates around the globe.

 

[YmirGF]

Perhaps you'd like to demonstrate your knowledge of plate tectonics and geology by explaining to me why the tectonic plates move in the first place.

Also are you aware that not all mountains are caused by plate tectonics? I don't know if you know of the city Auckland in New Zealand, but its about 150km away from a plate and there are mountains caused by volcanic hot spots everywhere???



Oh jesus. Unfortunately its not quite as simple as your example. In an ideal world yes, sure, but for one plates are not rectangular and the pressure they exert on each other is not quite so straightforward. You're forgetting that between the plates is a lot of soft, plastic material down the bottom, and hard rock towards the top. This is because below the plates is the mantle which is made up of material less dense than the plate itself. As a result, rediculous amounts of pressure build up in these areas, which can cause a multitude of different interactions. The soft material is forced towards the surface which is called uplift. Now, depending on the net pressures involved, the Material will either (usually) spread or lift. Under the sea is where we see a lot of spreading due to volcanic uplift. Now this is not to say both outcomes cannot exist at the same time. As we know plates are not consistent, so the plates can cause spreading and uplift at the same time.

I can go all day. Just keep in mind that geology is not like doing mathematics out of a book. Its unpredictable, and is extremely complex due to the diversity of the tectonic plates around the globe.

Uhmmmmm, Dark.... Fatihah was quoting me. *sigh*

 

[darkendless]

Uhmmmmm, Dark.... Fatihah was quoting me. *sigh*

I'm sorry, i didnt know which writing was who's. In reflection, i quoted the wrong sentence.

I'm not trying to be mean to either of you, just straightening a few things out. If you want proper clarification on anything i can PM course material from Earth Science? My lecturer is better at explaining things than i. The example of the buses is just :banghead3

While i read most of the posts in this thread, i do not respond. When people get a ntion in their head, especially when it supports their religion, it can never be removed.