Modern Science proves the Authenticity of the Glorious Qur'an

[Fatihah]

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.

Response: Then quote the post which proves me wrong, if you are truthful?

 

[Fatihah]

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.

Response: This is a response to post 338 in which you have me quoting a statement but those are not my words. You've misquoted me by attaching someone else's response to my name.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Every single one.

 

[Fatihah]

HaHa LOL,Yes,possibly,depends on the context does'nt it,what you fail to see is that Democritus has a valid connection to modern science whereas "Mountains are pegs" to prevent the Earth from shaking does'nt and is incorrect.

Response: I'm reading a statement. Where's the proof?

 

[themadhair]

Response: This is a response to post 338 in which you have me quoting a statement but those are not my words. You've misquoted me by attaching someone else's response to my name.

The deep irony being that those misquotations were much better attempts at demonstrating an understanding of plate tectonics than anything you have offered....

Just when I think there is no more belly-laughs along comes another one.

 

[JamBar85]

like that will ever happen.
no i don't expect anyone to do that, i'm just telling, thats all i'm doing, telling.

you think i expect anyone to convert or actually believe any of this. no i don't.

Then why post it? What are you hoping to achieve by posting this stuff?

Do you want people to argue or debate this or have you just posted it to say "I'm right, you're all wrong?

 

[Don Penguinoini]

It's just not funny watching you make a fool of yourself any more. Now it just evil to carry on debating you. Troll alert.

 

[YmirGF]

The deep irony being that those misquotations were much better attempts at demonstrating an understanding of plate tectonics than anything you have offered....

Just when I think there is no more belly-laughs along comes another one.

Exactly. Just when I thought I had hit rock bottom I sent Darnlessness a PM asking where I had got things wrong. This is regarding post #327 that Fatihah dumped all over and said I knew nothing.

Dark looked at the post and replied in a PM to me this morning, "You know your geology sir, that post is flawless".

: hamster :: hamster :: hamster :: hamster :: hamster :: hamster :

 

[themadhair]

Exactly. Just when I thought I had hit rock bottom I sent Darnlessness a PM asking where I had got things wrong. This is regarding post #327 that Fatihah dumped all over and said I knew nothing.

Dark looked at the post and replied in a PM to me this morning, "You know your geology sir, that post is flawless".

: hamster :: hamster :: hamster :: hamster :: hamster :: hamster :

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAAA!!!!!!!

Please...stop....my...belly....hurts....

 

[Fatihah]

How skewed does your perception have to be that after even a cursory glance at the two phenomena in question yields definitions that contradict your argument:

Earthquake: A tremor of the earth's surface usually triggered by the release of underground stress along fault lines. Earthquakes can also occur in volcanic regions by tectonic faults and the movement of magma in volcanoes.

Mountain: A landform that stretches above the surrounding land in a limited area usually in the form of a peak. Usually formed by the pressure of tectonic plates in collision or by volcanic activity.

If I was shown a map and asked to pick where the most movement of the earth occurred, I’d pick the mountain ranges just like any geologist would. Claiming that mountains ” prevent some of the quakes in the earth” is simply flat-out wrong Fatihah – and I find simply incredible that, in your zealotry to save face by performing such absurdities as redefining ‘earthquake’ to be something other than a ‘quake in the earth’, you have managed to ignore/miss/blot-out/misunderstand the multitudes of different ways different people on this thread have repeatedly explained and pointed out that mountains do not prevent any earthquakes, shaking or quakes of the earth.

It is also pretty obvious that isostasy doesn’t mean what you think it does Fatihah. I suppose you thought that by using some scientific terminology your argument might sound scientific. The problem you have here Fatihah is that many of the people on this thread do not live inside your koranic ignorance bubble, and many of these people have an understanding about this subject that you clearly do not.

I’m deeply conflicted about you Fatihah. On the one hand I frequently erupt into belly-laughs at some of the roaring ineptitudes and episodes of muppetry you have posted. But on the other hand I feel sympathy because I recognise what I am seeing – namely someone who is disconnected with reality and is desperately fighting to maintain a warped delusion.

In your fervour to reconcile reality and your fantasy you are not merely redefining and misunderstanding whole concepts, you are actually at the point of redefining and misunderstanding the very words used to describe and convey those concepts.

It is, in a word, scary.

Response: Now here's the problem. You've presented two statemens:

1. Isostasy does not mean what I said it means.

2. Mountains do not prevent quakes in the earth.

Two statements, no proof. Where's the proof?

 

[Don Penguinoini]

1. Isostasy does not mean what I said it means.

Good, that means he is right.

 

[painted wolf]

1. Isostasy does not mean what I said it means.

2. Mountains do not prevent quakes in the earth.

Two statements, no proof. Where's the proof?

1. Isostasy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. Earthquake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Earthquake - World Map Seismic Activity
Recent Earthquakes Map - ReadinessInfo.com

wa:do

 

[themadhair]

Response: Now here's the problem. You've presented two statemens:

1. Isostasy does not mean what I said it means.

2. Mountains do not prevent quakes in the earth.

Two statements, no proof. Where's the proof?

Reminds of one those string-dolls. You know the ones where they say different things when you pull the string? Initially you think it is interesting and worthy of attention, but after you pull the string two-dozen times and have grown weary of the same tired crap being repeated and repeated and repeated it ceases to be worthy of attention.

Isostasy has nothing to do with earthquakes or the formation of mountains, Fatihah, as you believed in post 322. It is to do with how tectonic plates are buoyant in relation to their density, weight and thickness.

That mountains do not prevent quakes of the earth has been explained, in the most simplest terms I could find, in the post of mine you quoted.

You appear to have fallen down a deep dark hole and smacked your head on a rock. Rather than call for help you appear, in your desire to keep digging, to be asking for the shovel.

 

[YmirGF]

Rather than call for help you appear, in your desire to keep digging, to be asking for the shovel.

*Hands Fatihah a rather large shiny new shovel*

 

[McBell]

Response: Then quote the post which proves me wrong, if you are truthful?

See any one of Painted Wolf's posts in this thread.

 

[Fatihah]

Go back 1 page and you'll see how mountains are formed. I took my information from my course material for Earth Science and GIS, if its wrong and you're right, the world is in a heck of a lot of trouble. However, im not wrong

Response: O.K. I did that. But exactly what post are you referring to because I saw nothing related to the present discussion.

 

[darkendless]

Ok, put simply;

Firstly we need to establish that plates move over the soft mantle causing convection, and rediculous amounts of pressure.

Depending on the type of plate and its interaction, mountains can and will form . The Himilayas are a result of two continental plates smashing into eachother. To refer to the bus example, its like the buses hitting, and then one buses front wheel ending up on the roof of the other bus. In regards to continental plates, its often hard to explain why one plate was pushed above the other because they're they same density and unlike the oceanic plates, we cannot conclude that bouyancy was the reason for uplift.

The three major tectonic actions are:

Transform actions: Plates grind together and no plate is pushed up or down. Since there is a lot of stress and convection, potential energy which is built up as a result, is released as strain (elongation or the stretching of a solid). As we know, rocks aren't too good at stretching in a lot of cases, so this can cause problems depending on where it happens. The San Andraes fault line experiences a lot of transformation along its length.

Rifting actions: As i said before, see floor spreading is an example of rifting. Plates are pulled apart causing a void usually filled with molten magma from the mantle (as you would expect). Hotspots (usually known as volcanos) are created here using kietic energy caused by convective currents beneath. Hotspots only occur when the pressure is great enough to break through the lithosphere. Iceland has a huge divergance in the Alfagja Rift Valley. Its pretty cool looking File:Bridge across continents iceland.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Convergent Actions: This is where the continental and oceanic plates crash into eachother. Because the oceanic plates are more dense than continental plates, the oceanic plates sink under causing mountains due to their lack of bouyancy.

If two continental plates crash together, mountains are formed (like the Himilayas) because one plate doesn't sink below the other (to put it simply). Massve uplift due to convective kinetic energy and pressure is what forms mountians as low density material is pushed between the plates from the mantle.

However, in practice it doesnt quite work like this. In an ideal world thats how plates interact.

So in conclusion. Without adding complicated factors that you would need a PHd in geology to understand, colliding continental plates are just one way in which mountains form, but are by no means the only. Maountains also do not hold the plates together, but in most cases, such as the Himilayas, collisions between the plates keep the mountains growing rather than breaking them apart. Thats why the himilayas are growing.

For your convenience Fatihah. Thats how tectonic plates act commonly.

If you have any questions on geology, fire away ill do my best.

 

[Fatihah]

Reminds of one those string-dolls. You know the ones where they say different things when you pull the string? Initially you think it is interesting and worthy of attention, but after you pull the string two-dozen times and have grown weary of the same tired crap being repeated and repeated and repeated it ceases to be worthy of attention.

Isostasy has nothing to do with earthquakes or the formation of mountains, Fatihah, as you believed in post 322. It is to do with how tectonic plates are buoyant in relation to their density, weight and thickness.

Response: I never said that isostasy had anything to do with earthquakes. But it does when it comes to the formation of mountains.

Quote: themadhair
That mountains do not prevent quakes of the earth has been explained, in the most simplest terms I could find, in the post of mine you quoted.

You appear to have fallen down a deep dark hole and smacked your head on a rock. Rather than call for help you appear, in your desire to keep digging, to be asking for the shovel.

Response: Another statement. Where's the proof?

 

[Fatihah]

See any one of Painted Wolf's posts in this thread.

Response: I said quote the post. But if you claim that painted wolf has proven a point, well one thing she get's credit for is being the only one who actually provides proof of her claims. Unfortunately, her own post only proves my argument. The link in which she herself provided in post 213 confirms my argument.

 

[YmirGF]

Response: I said quote the post. But if you claim that painted wolf has proven a point, well one thing she get's credit for is being the only one who actually provides proof of her claims. Unfortunately, her own post only proves my argument. The link in which she herself provided in post 213 confirms my argument.

Your argument is defeated. Try to take it graciously.