Modern Science proves the Authenticity of the Glorious Qur'an

[Tobi]

Response: If one were to look up the definition of isostasy, they will not come across as you have put it," the balance that must exist (in equilibrium) between the gravitational force pulling the mountain down, and the bouyant force of the mantle below the mountain pushing it up". So this is incorrect. Then you go on to say,"Secondly it doesn't say mountains balance the Earth's surface, in other words, it doesn't say the Earth's surface shakes less because of mountains, or shakes less near mountains".

But it clearly says,"In order to balance the weight of the earth's surface, much of the compressed rock is forced downward, producing deep "mountain roots"(See the Book of "Earth", Press and Siever page. 413). Mountains therefore form downward as well as upward (see isostasy)"

The statement above cleary says, "In order to balance the weight of the earth's surface.." So mountains do in fact balance the earth's surface.

What you are doing here is playing with words.

Mr Spinkles was explaining a process. The process of tectonic plates rubbing together. The fact that "isostacy" to you means something other than the process he was explaining does not mean that his description of the process is not true.

In fact his explanation matches up with observations, and doesn't leave any suspicious gaps. And there is nothing in what he was saying to indicate that mountains as a rule stabilize the regions around them.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Fatihah,

Did you read my post, #507?

Plus if we add to the fact that you will never, and I repeat, will never find a reliable scientist, a reliable science book, a reliable science article or website that will tell you that mountains "do not" balance the earth's surface.

No and they won't say mountains "balance" Earth's surface either, because it's an incoherent statement at best, inaccurate otherwise.

Then if they needed more evidence, they can simply refer to your post and see how you've tried to play with words to bring some sort of credibility to your stance. Your post alone could could make a person run to islam.

Let's see a show of hands. How many non-Muslims have read themadhair's post and are now prepared to run to Islam?

*edited "Muslims" to "non-Muslims"

 

[Fatihah]

What you are doing here is playing with words.

Mr Sprinkles was explaining a process. The process of tectonic plates rubbing together. The fact that "isostacy" to you means something other than the process he was explaining does not mean that his description of the process is not true.

Response: It's not a play on words and it's not about "my" definition but "the" definition. And what was said is not "the" definition of isostasy.

 

[Fatihah]

Fatihah,

Did you read my post, #507?

Response: Yes

Quote: Mr. Sprinkles
No and they won't say mountains "balance" Earth's surface either, because it's an incoherent statement at best, inaccurate otherwise.

Response: Yes it does and it cleary said it post 509. You are simply in denial. To deny such crystal clear evidence is just not appealing of you. However, if you insist...

 

[painted wolf]

What model of Isostasy are you using Fatihah?

wa:do

ps... I'm assuming Airy-Heiskanen

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Sorry Fatihah I missed your response....

Response: If one were to look up the definition of isostasy, they will not come across as you have put it," the balance that must exist (in equilibrium) between the gravitational force pulling the mountain down, and the bouyant force of the mantle below the mountain pushing it up". So this is incorrect

Okay let's look it up...here are three websites, a math and physics site, an Earth science educational site, and an online encyclopedia.....[red color added by me]

Mechanics

Gravity

[SIZE=+1]Isostacy[/SIZE]

Gravitational equipotential surfaces (the geoid) on the Earth are independent of continent positions. However, highs are correlated with the Tharsis region and lows with Chryse and Amazonis basins on Mars. Therefore, the topography must be compensated by a mass deficit in the crust or mantle. The observed gravity for Tharsis is much smaller than that predicted from topography alone, however, so the crust must be strong or the compensation deep.
Take a crustal block of density

extending a height d below the surface and a height h above it. Archimedes' principle then states that the buoyancy force is given by

(1)
​

where A is the cross sectional area and g is the gravitational acceleration. This must balance the weight, so

(2)
​

Buoyancy

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Isostacy.html
^ Science and math website that physicists use all the time
As I said, it's a balance between the weight (gravitational force) and the buoyant force. Archimedes' principle. I'm a physics student so I understand what Archimedes' principle says and does not say.

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Isostacy [/FONT]


As he was taking a bath one day, a mathematician named Archimedes discovered something. He noticed that if you place an object in water, the water level rises. This led to Archimedes' Principle. This principle says that an object applies a force that pushes downward on the liquid. Another force pushes upward on the object that is placed in the fluid. If the object is denser than the fluid, it will sink. If the object is less dense than the fluid, it will float. If an object floats, it will, however, sink lower in the water as more mass is added to it.

[FONT=arial,helvetica]2[/FONT] Think of it this way. An iceberg floats on water. The ice is less dense than the water it is floating on. But part of the iceberg is still under water. Now, imagine that a polar bear climbs onto the iceberg. The water level will rise around the iceberg and there will be more of the iceberg under the water. Now, imagine that the polar bear gets off and swims away. The iceberg has less mass, so it will now float higher in the water. Less of its mass will be under water.

[FONT=arial,helvetica]3[/FONT] So, what does all this have to do with earth science? It helps explain earth's isostacy. Do you remember the theory of plate tectonics? This theory basically says that the crust of the earth is broken into giant pieces. These pieces float around on the partly liquid mantle (asthenosphere) below it. The crust floats because it is less dense than the mantle.

Isostacy
^ Children's educational earth science website

isostasy


Condition of gravitational equilibrium of all parts of the Earth's crust. The crust is in isostatic equilibrium if, below a certain depth, the weight and thus pressure of rocks above is the same everywhere. The idea is that the lithosphere floats on the asthenosphere as a piece of wood floats on water. A thick piece of wood floats lower than a thin piece, and a denser piece of wood floats lower than a less dense piece. There are two theories of the mechanism of isostasy, the Airy hypothesis and the Pratt hypothesis, both of which have validity. In the Airy hypothesis crustal blocks have the same density but different thicknesses: like ice cubes floating in water, higher mountains have deeper roots. In the Pratt hypothesis, crustal blocks have different densities allowing the depth of crustal material to be the same. In practice, both mechanisms are at work.

Isostacy - Hutchinson encyclopedia article about Isostacy
^ Online encyclopedia

Then you go on to say,"Secondly it doesn't say mountains balance the Earth's surface, in other words, it doesn't say the Earth's surface shakes less because of mountains, or shakes less near mountains".

But it clearly says,"In order to balance the weight of the earth's surface, much of the compressed rock is forced downward, producing deep "mountain roots"(See the Book of "Earth", Press and Siever page. 413). Mountains therefore form downward as well as upward (see isostasy)"

The statement above cleary says, "In order to balance the weight of the earth's surface.." So mountains do in fact balance the earth's surface.

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.
​

[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.

 

[YmirGF]

:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap

A veritable 'tour de force' post, Mr. Spinkles.
Heck, at the very least anyone reading this thread is going to become very knowledgable about the true nature of isostacy, lol.

I wonder if that is what Fatihah had intended?

 

[YmirGF]

Let's see a show of hands. How many non-Muslims have read themadhair's post and are now prepared to run to Islam?

*looks around*
Nope. This lump of flesh will pass, thanks.

 

[Tobi]

But the continents don't move up and down with the waves, so Magic Man must've done it!

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Let's see a show of hands. How many non-Muslims have read themadhair's post and are now prepared to run to Islam?

Like YmirGF, I have no desire to join the other animals in their worship of a deity.


PS - has anyone else noticed the irony of Fatihah now resorting to everyone that disagrees with him as "being in denial"? I mean, this guy hasn't even begun to consider reality, much less embrace it - and here he is telling (literally) the rest of the world that it is on the wrong path.

 

[themadhair]

[SIZE=+2]Can we have a rational Muslim join this thread please? Every moderate rational Muslim must surely realise that Fatihah is doing you a bad turn. Please remind us that such moderate sensible Muslims exist.[/SIZE]

 

[A-ManESL]

The title of the thread is "Modern Science proves the Authenticity of the Glorious Qur'an".

Note that Modern Science doesn't prove anything. I feel that many posters here do not have a correct understanding of the idea of science, of the scientific method, of falsifiability and of the epistemological issue of the objective truth of science. Many posters believe that if the Quran can be shown to have truths which can be proved scientifically (although there is no such thing as an empirical scientific proof) it would prove that the Quran itself is authentic. They mistakenly are putting more faith in science then the Quran by making science the standard by which to judge the Quran.

I do not think that the Quran has any scientific truth, even in the empirical sense, and this does not diminish my faith in the Quran at all.

The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability. — Karl Popper

 

[themadhair]

It took 54 pages for a wise Muslim to speak wisely on this thread.

Thank you A-ManESL

 

[The Neo Nerd]

It took 54 pages for a wise Muslim to speak wisely on this thread.

Thank you A-ManESL

I agree thankyou for showing some rationality A-man.

-Q

 

[Don Penguinoini]

The title of the thread is "Modern Science proves the Authenticity of the Glorious Qur'an".

Note that Modern Science doesn't prove anything. I feel that many posters here do not have a correct understanding of the idea of science, of the scientific method, of falsifiability and of the epistemological issue of the objective truth of science. Many posters believe that if the Quran can be shown to have truths which can be proved scientifically (although there is no such thing as an empirical scientific proof) it would prove that the Quran itself is authentic. They mistakenly are putting more faith in science then the Quran by making science the standard by which to judge the Quran.

I do not think that the Quran has any scientific truth, even in the empirical sense, and this does not diminish my faith in the Quran at all.

Thank you for showing us there are intelligent and rational Muslims out there.

 

[Fatihah]

[SIZE=+2]Can we have a rational Muslim join this thread please? Every moderate rational Muslim must surely realise that Fatihah is doing you a bad turn. Please remind us that such moderate sensible Muslims exist.[/SIZE]

Response: Now what exactly did you just accomplish? You want to defame me so badly that you would create a post like this? For what? Because we disagree? How mature are you? Tell me? Do the other non-muslims here have the same manners as this? Then you have the audacity to ask for other muslims to the thread? For what? Do you really think that a true muslim would agree with you? Of course not. That would make them go against the qur'an. But look how mature you are. And whether a non-muslim here agrees with me or not, it still should not change the fact that an amount of respect is due to everyone and if any of you have an ounce of decency, you would be able to agree and condemn it yourself as to the ignorance in the post above.

But your post only strengthens my faith in Allah (swt). You see, why else would a person create such a post? You deliberately write my name in large bold print in an effort to draw negative attention to me and on top of that, you had the nerve to call on other muslims. Why? Why else. It's because you've taken a discussion on a website personally. Why? Because your aim was to seek the thrill of victory in a debate but instead you was convincingly served the agony of defeat. Only a defeated person carries out the behavior in the post you've just displayed. And to this, I simply say, "Subhan'Allah"!!

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

 

[Don Penguinoini]

How mature are you? Tell me? Do the other non-muslims here have the same manners as this? Then you have the audacity to ask for other muslims to the thread? For what?

He has the audacity because you are plainly delusional.

 

[YmirGF]

You deliberately write my name in large bold print in an effort to draw negative attention to me and on top of that, you had the nerve to call on other muslims. Why? Why else.

I think it is quite possibly because you have zero credibility and refuse to admit it, but hey... that's just me.

 

[Fatihah]

He has the audacity because you are plainly delusional.

Response: Still in denial?

 

[Tobi]

Do you really think that a true muslim would agree with you?

One did.

...you've taken a discussion on a website personally. Why? Because your aim was to seek the thrill of victory in a debate but instead you was convincingly served the agony of defeat.

Somehow... that just makes me sigh.