Modern Science proves the Authenticity of the Glorious Qur'an

[The Voice of Reason]

Then we fall into the game of "my site is right and yours is wrong".

As opposed to saying something really absurd - like "My religious text is right and yours is wrong"?

 

[Fatihah]

It is the earth maintaining equilibrium. In simple terms, the force upwards (pressure from plate collisions) has to be equal to the force downwards (weight of rock, gravity) in order to release the pressure build up, and cancel out the forces applied by collisions. Through this, the earth is strong and will retain whatever shape its in.

Ok, from simple mechanics, if you put upward pressure on a car balanced on a point what happens, it goes up right? How do you balance that upward movement? You push down with another force to balance it. Essentially (very very basically) thats whats happening with the mass of rock. The rock forms downwards to balance the upward force due to pressure and the bouyancy force of the low density material associated with it?

Do you get it?

Response: I completely get it. Now let's keep this going with an opened mind and not with any attempt to be right. Using this same logic, when referring to plate tectonics, the collision of the plates causes the earth's surface to shake us. The larger plate is pushed downward and the smaller is pushed upward as the principle of isostasy clearly says.

From this, the plates form mountains both upward on the earth's surface as well as under the earth's surface. Now if the collision of these plates causes the earth's surface to shake us, then the mountains in which they form would shake in the same manner. Yet one can clearly see that the mountains are not in a continuous motion which would shake us. Therefore the plates that formed them are not as well, thus the mountains are preventing the earth from shaking us. Because as you just said, to balance the upward movement, you need a force to push down to balance it. The mountain formed above the surface is pushing down on the plates right above the mountain formed below, holding the plates together. So the mountains do in fact prevent the earth's surface from shaking. How clearer can the evidence get.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Response: Diddo. Just because I am a muslim does not mean that I don't have a backround in knowledge on other topics as well besides islam.

That's true.

In your case, however, it isn't the fact that you are a Muslim that leads us to believe that you don't know what you're talking about. It is the ceaseless usage of things like "I see a statement, but I don't see any proof", rather than addressing what has been laid before you. It is accusing anyone that disagrees with you of "being in denial". It is the fact that you disavow another Muslim, because he doesn't agree with you.

You see, you earned such scorn based on your own words - not simply because you are a Muslim.

 

[Fatihah]

Buoy
–noun
1. Nautical. a distinctively shaped and marked float, sometimes carrying a signal or signals, anchored to mark a channel, anchorage, navigational hazard, etc., or to provide a mooring place away from the shore.
2. a life buoy.

BELOW - SCIENTISTS WORKING ON AN INSTRUMENT BUOY
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/factsheets/elnino/

Response: I surely hope you are not using this as evidence to "buoy". Do you really think that what is labeled in the picture is being referred to as the buoyancy in the formation of mountains? How did it get down in the earth's surface and who put it there?

 

[Fatihah]

That's true.

In your case, however, it isn't the fact that you are a Muslim that leads us to believe that you don't know what you're talking about. It is the ceaseless usage of things like "I see a statement, but I don't see any proof", rather than addressing what has been laid before you. It is accusing anyone that disagrees with you of "being in denial". It is the fact that you disavow another Muslim, because he doesn't agree with you.

You see, you earned such scorn based on your own words - not simply because you are a Muslim.

Response: If you don't like the statement, " I see a statement, where's the proof", then when you say a statement, provide the proof? If you don't like me saying, "your in denial", then stop being in denial. As for your statement concerning another muslim, again, you can't see that what you've just said has no proof attached? So I won't say it, if you provide it.

 

[McBell]

Response: If you don't like the statement, " I see a statement, where's the proof", then when you say a statement, provide the proof? If you don't like me saying, "your in denial", then stop being in denial. As for your statement concerning another muslim, again, you can't see that what you've just said has no proof attached? So I won't say it, if you provide it.

Response: I see a statement, where's the proof?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Response: I surely hope you are not using this as evidence to "buoy". Do you really think that what is labeled in the picture is being referred to as the buoyancy in the formation of mountains? How did it get down in the earth's surface and who put it there?

No it's evidence that the word "buoy" is a noun, not just a verb, as you seemed to imply. I used buoys floating on the ocean as an illustrative example we are all familiar with of Archimedes' principle. And I was not talking about the formation of mountains. That's a separate issue.

 

[Fatihah]

Response: I see a statement, where's the proof?

Response: Proof of what?

 

[Fatihah]

No it's evidence that the word "buoy" is a noun, not just a verb, as you seemed to imply. I used buoys floating on the ocean as an illustrative example we are all familiar with of Archimedes' principle. And I was not talking about the formation of mountains. That's a separate issue.

Response: O.K. But it is also a verb depending on the context, and it is used as a verb when referring to isostasy, not the noun.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Response: If you don't like the statement, " I see a statement, where's the proof", then when you say a statement, provide the proof? If you don't like me saying, "your in denial", then stop being in denial. As for your statement concerning another muslim, again, you can't see that what you've just said has no proof attached? So I won't say it, if you provide it.

Do you have a kid brother in the third grade that we can talk to? Is there anyone near the keyboard that you are typing on that can process a simple statement and give a reasonable response?

If there is, please let them sit down and take over for you.

If not, do everyone here a favor, and just step away from the keyboard. Take a vacation - go for a long drive - use the next six months to see the countryside - book a cruise around the world - join a monastery. Just stay away from the keyboard. Muslims the world over will owe you a great debt of gratitude.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Response: I completely get it. Now let's keep this going with an opened mind and not with any attempt to be right. Using this same logic, when referring to plate tectonics, the collision of the plates causes the earth's surface to shake us. The larger plate is pushed downward and the smaller is pushed upward as the principle of isostasy clearly says.

From this, the plates form mountains both upward on the earth's surface as well as under the earth's surface. Now if the collision of these plates causes the earth's surface to shake us, then the mountains in which they form would shake in the same manner. Yet one can clearly see that the mountains are not in a continuous motion which would shake us. Therefore the plates that formed them are not as well, thus the mountains are preventing the earth from shaking us. Because as you just said, to balance the upward movement, you need a force to push down to balance it. The mountain formed above the surface is pushing down on the plates right above the mountain formed below, holding the plates together. So the mountains do in fact prevent the earth's surface from shaking. How clearer can the evidence get.

Honestly Fatihah....I agree with you we should keep an open mind and not just try to be right. However, I am afraid there are so many things wrong with your post here It would take an enormous amount of time and effort to clear it up. Honestly, I'm not saying that to be rude. For example, in your first paragraph you say "the larger plate is pushed downward and the smaller is pushed upward as the principle of isostacy clearly states". No, it doesn't state that. I don't know what principle that is that you described, but it is not isostacy. Another example: the time-scales over which we humans experience "shaking" is ~hours. The time-scales over which significant change occurs in mountains and plates is ~thousands or millions of years. So the observable movement of an entire mountain up and down (!) on the time scale of hours does not necessarily have anything to do with the observable "shaking" of the Earth we humans experience....

Remember, the questionable sentence you are focused on was from Wikipedia, buried in the article on mountains. The same source (Wiki) has an article on isostacy which says:

Isostasy (Greek isos = "equal", stásis = "standstill") is a term used in geology to refer to the state of gravitational equilibrium between the earth's lithosphere and asthenosphere such that the tectonic plates "float" at an elevation which depends on their thickness and density.
...
In the simplest example, isostasy is the principle of buoyancy observed by Archimedes in his bath, where he saw that when an object was immersed, an amount of water equal in volume to that of the object was displaced. On a geological scale, isostasy can be observed where the Earth's strong lithosphere exerts stress on the weaker asthenosphere which, over geological time flows laterally such that the load of the lithosphere is accommodated by height adjustments.

Please note the reference to floating, Archimedes' principle, geologic time (as in millions of years), etc.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Response: O.K. But it is also a verb depending on the context, and it is used as a verb when referring to isostasy, not the noun.

A buoy is a thing that floats in water. Everyone is intuitively familiar with it. I talked about a buoy, the noun, the physical object that floats in water, because it is a good example to illustrate and think about Archimedes' principle. Archimedes' principle is the basic principle underlying isostacy, as your own source (Wikipedia) states.

Mountains are more difficult to think about because they seem motionless on human time scales even though they are moving on geologic time scales (millions of years).

I hope that's clear.

For the record, you said:

Response: I don't know exactly how you are using the word "buoys" but no scientist would use it the way you use it because the word is a verb.

 

[YmirGF]

From this, the plates form mountains both upward on the earth's surface as well as under the earth's surface. Now if the collision of these plates causes the earth's surface to shake us, then the mountains in which they form would shake in the same manner. Yet one can clearly see that the mountains are not in a continuous motion which would shake us. Therefore the plates that formed them are not as well, thus the mountains are preventing the earth from shaking us. Because as you just said, to balance the upward movement, you need a force to push down to balance it. The mountain formed above the surface is pushing down on the plates right above the mountain formed below, holding the plates together. So the mountains do in fact prevent the earth's surface from shaking. How clearer can the evidence get.

For pity sakes, Fatihah, I am no expert and even I can see a rather large hole here. You are making the assumption that tectonic plate collisions cause the Earth's surface to shake. They don't in such a way that humans can feel! The normal grinding of the plates is too slow for us to notice. It is only when the plates slip or move abruptly that we get an earthquake and THAT we notice. The kicker is that at such times, even the mountains in a given area will be shaking just as much as everything else, so it is ludicrious to say they stop the ground from shaking. O_O

(Haha. I just thought of another way you could craft this argument that would make many people sit there and go, "Hmmmm! Gee, how would Muhammad know that?" But, I am not inclined to give you ideas. If anyone else is interested just shoot me a pm and I'll spill the beans.)

 

[The Neo Nerd]

(Haha. I just thought of another way you could craft this argument that would make many people sit there and go, "Hmmmm! Gee, how would Muhammad know that?" But, I am not inclined to give you ideas. If anyone else is interested just shoot me a pm and I'll spill the beans.)

Ohhh go on, he could use all the help he can get.

-Q

 

[Fatihah]

What model of Isostasy are you using Fatihah?

wa:do

ps... I'm assuming Airy-Heiskanen

Response: What do you mean by "what model"?

 

[Fatihah]

No. As I said:

Then the buoy (mountain) will float, with some of it above water, some of it below; the system is "balanced" in the sense that the buoy does not move up or down relative to the surface of the water directly below it.

This does not mean, however, that the surface of the water is necessarily calmer near the buoy, or calmer overall because of the buoy, or even affected in any significant way by the buoy. It would be inaccurate to say that a rubber ducky floating in a bathtub "prevents the water from shaking" and the same is true for mountains preventing the Earth from shaking in this case.

Response: This statement is completely wrong. You're calling a "buoy" a mountain? A buoy is not a mountain.


​

[emphasis added] It is "balanced" only if you restrict your meaning to the sense in the bolded part, and that part only. It is not "balanced" if you mean the ups-and-downs experienced by an seagull perched on the buoy, or floating on the surface near the buoy. The buoy does not move up or down relative to the surface of the water directly below it. But that surface itself may move up and down violently, and an observer standing on or near the buoy will experience that just as they would if there were no buoy. If I am in an elevator that violently moves upward, I assure you there will be a "balance" in the sense that the force of the elevator floor (unless I fall through it) will cancel out the gravitational force pulling me down. But just because I am not moving relative to the floor doesn't mean I am not moving. It doesn't mean I don't experience changing forces acting on me, and in that sense I would feel very "out of balance" indeed; the "balance" in that sense is determined entirely by the movement of the elevator, not the movement of me relative to the elevator.

Response: This is just... wrong. The "buoy" or" buoyancy" would basically mean to keep afloat. You have turned the word to mean something else, thus making your whole argument crumble. You said "The buoy does not move up or down relative to the surface of the water directly below it. But that surface itself may move up and down violently, and an observer standing on or near the buoy will experience that just as they would if there were no buoy."

Your using the word "buoy" as a noun in your argument, which makes no sense. It's a verb. Buoyancy means "to keep afloat". How on earth can you move up and down a "to keep a float". It doesn't make sense. You can't move a verb. A verb describes movement.

 

[Fatihah]

Honestly Fatihah....I agree with you we should keep an open mind and not just try to be right. However, I am afraid there are so many things wrong with your post here It would take an enormous amount of time and effort to clear it up. Honestly, I'm not saying that to be rude. For example, in your first paragraph you say "the larger plate is pushed downward and the smaller is pushed upward as the principle of isostacy clearly states". No, it doesn't state that. I don't know what principle that is that you described, but it is not isostacy.

Response: That's a statement. Where's the proof? Isostasy does say this, as I have provided proof for and is clearly shown in post 509.

 

[darkendless]

Response: This is just... wrong. The "buoy" or" buoyancy" would basically mean to keep afloat. You have turned the word to mean something else, thus making your whole argument crumble. You said "The buoy does not move up or down relative to the surface of the water directly below it. But that surface itself may move up and down violently, and an observer standing on or near the buoy will experience that just as they would if there were no buoy."

Your using the word "buoy" as a noun in your argument, which makes no sense. It's a verb. Buoyancy means "to keep afloat". How on earth can you move up and down a "to keep a float". It doesn't make sense. You can't move a verb. A verb describes movement.

Because simple hydraulics are involved in such events, bouyancy is in fact correct. A mountain is a dense material sitting above a very low density material (the mantle). When a soccer ball sits on top of water is a high density material (composite plastic) sitting on top of a low density water? Same basic principle

 

[Fatihah]

A buoy is a thing that floats in water. Everyone is intuitively familiar with it. I talked about a buoy, the noun, the physical object that floats in water, because it is a good example to illustrate and think about Archimedes' principle. Archimedes' principle is the basic principle underlying isostacy, as your own source (Wikipedia) states.

Mountains are more difficult to think about because they seem motionless on human time scales even though they are moving on geologic time scales (millions of years).

I hope that's clear.

For the record, you said:

Response: The definition of the word "buoy" is not defined as a thing that floats in water when referring to mountains. The other definition is "to keep afloat" and this is the definition being used.

 

[Fatihah]

For pity sakes, Fatihah, I am no expert and even I can see a rather large hole here. You are making the assumption that tectonic plate collisions cause the Earth's surface to shake. They don't in such a way that humans can feel! The normal grinding of the plates is too slow for us to notice. It is only when the plates slip or move abruptly that we get an earthquake and THAT we notice. The kicker is that at such times, even the mountains in a given area will be shaking just as much as everything else, so it is ludicrious to say they stop the ground from shaking. O_O

Response: Yes you clearly are no expert because any person here can look up what causes earth quakes and you will be told out of the several ways that the collision or rubbing of plates together in the earth's surface is part of the cause.