Quran and Science : Just wanted some comments

[McBell]

Ok, for sake of argument even I am agreeing that it is wrong.
Now Standard Rules when studying a religious text tell us (which any actual student of comparative religion can confirm) that in a scripture: If a single word has many meanings then the most appropriate one is chosen and rest are discarded and not considered. This does not mean that the verse is wrong.
Similarly, if u want to disagree with "clot of blood" statement, fine do so. But, even u should not consider the verse wrong as word Alaqah has three meanings: something that clings, leech like substance and congealed clot of blood.
If we omit congealed clot of blood, still 2 definitions that are accurate remain. Therefore, the verse is still correct.
PS i will return in 2 hours.

the problem here is that instead of using a word that means all three, they chose to translate it as a clot of congealed blood.
Which is clearly false.
However back then, it was believed that the woman was nothing more than an incubator for the seed of man.

So one can clearly see that the 'clear' meaning has changed to agree with the currently accepted science at the time.

So once again we are back to the forer effect.

 

[Peace4all]

First off, I need to know where this statement is from. so that I may check upon its context.
Then I needs know what other meanings this statement was 'clearly' referring to before it was 'clearly' referring to "serve as studs for scientific for tectonic plates"
Then you will needs explain what you are actually talking about when you use the term: "serve as studs for tectonic plates" because as written it makes no sense.

Fair Enough. On Earth there are major plates that compose of the Earth surface. The asthenosphere and the outer core are mostly liquid so the thin tectonic plates are fairly unstable alone. Mountains actually hold the crust of the Earth together to stop it shaking about from the convection currents below. They act as a sort of firmament that stops or dampens down further vibration from the collision of the tectonic plates.

As far as the verse context checks:
078.006 Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse,
078.007 And the mountains as pegs?
you can check it if you want here

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

the problem here is that instead of using a word that means all three, they chose to translate it as a clot of congealed blood.
Which is clearly false.
However back then, it was believed that the woman was nothing more than an incubator for the seed of man.

So one can clearly see that the 'clear' meaning has changed to agree with the currently accepted science at the time.

So once again we are back to the forer effect.

So, if we agree with you (again) what u are implying is that the verse is wrong.
First of all, Quran's text's meaning has not changed. If a word that has three meanings was used and a translator chose the wrong meaning, are u going to attribute faulty translations as error in Quran?
Surely, Arabic translation is quite difficult. Yet, we can never say that due to a translation there is error in Quran. Go back, to the arabic manuscript and find an error there for it was the script in which Quran was revealed.
Secondly, leading biologists didn't argue at all when Quran called embryo congealed clot of blood. Once again , it's appearance.

 

[camanintx]

Fair Enough. On Earth there are major plates that compose of the Earth surface. The asthenosphere and the outer core are mostly liquid so the thin tectonic plates are fairly unstable alone. Mountains actually hold the crust of the Earth together to stop it shaking about from the convection currents below. They act as a sort of firmament that stops or dampens down further vibration from the collision of the tectonic plates.

As far as the verse context checks:
078.006 Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse,
078.007 And the mountains as pegs?
you can check it if you want here

How do you know that the writer wasn't thinking of wooden stakes when they referred to the mountains as pegs? Wouldn't it have been common in that time and place to secure things with large weights or stakes to keep them from blowing away?

Isn't it a classic case of the Forer effect when you assume that they must have interpreted this verse the same way that you do today?

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

How do you know that the writer wasn't thinking of wooden stakes when they referred to the mountains as pegs? Wouldn't it have been common in that time and place to secure things with large weights or stakes to keep them from blowing away?

Isn't it a classic case of the Forer effect when you assume that they must have interpreted this verse the same way that you do today?

Even if they had interpreted the verse differently, it doesn't make much of a difference. Quran had been revealed for eternity (till humans will live) and therefore it's verses meaning cannot be restricted to the definition taken up by followers in a particular time period.
As I have said before, even if one interpretation of the verse is correct, the verse is not wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"We have created the mountains as studs" Surat Amma
This literary states that we have created the mountain as studs. This is a incontrovertible scientific fact that mountains serve as studs for scientific for tectonic plates. This fact was scientifically discovered only in the Mid 19th century. How do you explain this?

I'm somewhat familiar with tectonic theory, but I have no idea how someone could consider a mountain a "stud". To me a "stud" is a type of fastener (or a piece of lumber used as a vertical element usually inside a wall, or a male horse used for breeding, but I assume that neither of those definitions apply here): something that holds something else in position. Mountains do not do this to tectonic plates. In what sense do you think that mountains could be considered "studs"?

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

I'm somewhat familiar with tectonic theory, but I have no idea how someone could consider a mountain a "stud". To me a "stud" is a type of fastener (or a piece of lumber used as a vertical element usually inside a wall, or a male horse used for breeding, but I assume that neither of those definitions apply here): something that holds something else in position. Mountains do not do this to tectonic plates. In what sense do you think that mountains could be considered "studs"?

Can anyone give me the verse no. so I can check up the explanation of the verse.
Hey 9-10ths_Penguin any comments on the verses I quoted.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry, Peace4all... I missed this post of yours before I made my last one.

Fair Enough. On Earth there are major plates that compose of the Earth surface. The asthenosphere and the outer core are mostly liquid so the thin tectonic plates are fairly unstable alone. Mountains actually hold the crust of the Earth together to stop it shaking about from the convection currents below. They act as a sort of firmament that stops or dampens down further vibration from the collision of the tectonic plates.

I think that, geologically speaking, there are a number of things wrong with your explanation:

Mountains don't "hold the crust of the Earth together". Mountains are generally caused by tectonic plates colliding; their existence is evidence of movement, not evidence of fixity.

The convection currents in the Earth are not fast enough to cause any sort of "shaking about", except that currents causing plate movement are likely the source of the forces that cause energy to be built up that is released as earthquakes. These happen most often at plate boundaries, which would include most mountain ranges. The places with the least "shaking about" are generally near the centre of tectonic plates... i.e. as far away from mountain ranges as you can get.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that mountains "as a sort of firmament that stops or dampens down further vibration". Solids (e.g. the rock of mountains) are generally much better conductors of vibration than liquids (e.g. our Earth's mantle).

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

Sorry, Peace4all... I missed this post of yours before I made my last one.



I think that, geologically speaking, there are a number of things wrong with your explanation:

Mountains don't "hold the crust of the Earth together". Mountains are generally caused by tectonic plates colliding; their existence is evidence of movement, not evidence of fixity.

The convection currents in the Earth are not fast enough to cause any sort of "shaking about", except that currents causing plate movement are likely the source of the forces that cause energy to be built up that is released as earthquakes. These happen most often at plate boundaries, which would include most mountain ranges. The places with the least "shaking about" are generally near the centre of tectonic plates... i.e. as far away from mountain ranges as you can get.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that mountains "as a sort of firmament that stops or dampens down further vibration". Solids (e.g. the rock of mountains) are much better conductors of vibration than liquids (e.g. our Earth's mantle).

As far as my brain tells me ( because seriously I am no expert in geology), can't the mountains act as barriers to prevent further movement/shaking of crust. I mean, they would be preventing the crusts from moving.
However, I do not have much knowledge about geology and therefore cannot comment further. Can you plz provide a link or some info on topic of crust movement that clearly explain why mountains may not be stabilizing earth's crust.

 

[TashaN]

However back then, it was believed that the woman was nothing more than an incubator for the seed of man.

Do you refer to Islam's period or before that?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

That is why in beginning only I wrote if U don't like such threads, DON't Post . It would have saved my time too. What was the need of sarcasm?
And in case you haven't noticed: these verses were verified by two Non-Muslims, who are much more accomplished at the matter than you.

If they've been verified by two non Muslims who know so much more than we do, why are you bothering to ask us for our opinions? Apparently we've got no clue.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

If they've been verified by two non Muslims who know so much more than we do, why are you bothering to ask us for our opinions? Apparently we've got no clue.

I am sorry, I shouldn't have said that. Rather, I was speaking the truth yet it should have been spoken in such manner. However, would like if u would provide proof of your counter-arguments.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As far as my brain tells me ( because seriously I am no expert in geology), can't the mountains act as barriers to prevent further movement/shaking of crust. I mean, they would be preventing the crusts from moving.
However, I do not have much knowledge about geology and therefore cannot comment further. Can you plz provide a link or some info on topic of crust movement that clearly explain why mountains may not be stabilizing earth's crust.

Here is one part of a lesson on plate tectonics that describes how subduction zones work. This is an example of what happens at most mountain ranges on or near continental coasts, such as the Andes in South America and the Rockies in North America. In these cases, the mountain range does virtually nothing to prevent plate movement.

This page in the same lesson shows types of plate movements:

- divergent plate boundaries. These are typical of mid-ocean ridges (i.e. long underwater mountain ranges). In these cases, the existence of mountains does nothing to stop or reduce the plate movement.

- convergent plate boundaries (note: oceanic-continental boundary shown). These are typical of coastal mountain ranges. In these cases, the existence of mountains also does not stop or reduce plate movement.

Also (but not shown in that lesson) are continental-continental plate boundaries, which created mountain ranges like the Himilayas in Inda/Tibet. You can find an example of these here. In 10 million years since the Himilayas formed, the India plate is still moving into the Eurasia plate without any sign of stopping or slowing, so it seems, IMO, that the tallest mountain range in the world has done little to act as a "peg" or a "stud".

Back to that lesson, this page shows a map of the worldwide distribution of earthquakes. If you check this against a map of world mountain ranges, you'll see that earthquakes tend to happen in mountainous areas.

 

[credance]

I personally find it very encouraging that the Quran contains so much sceintific data. After all, in many Islamic countries the Quran is considered the only thing worthy of serious study.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Fair Enough. On Earth there are major plates that compose of the Earth surface. The asthenosphere and the outer core are mostly liquid so the thin tectonic plates are fairly unstable alone. Mountains actually hold the crust of the Earth together to stop it shaking about from the convection currents below. They act as a sort of firmament that stops or dampens down further vibration from the collision of the tectonic plates.

As far as the verse context checks:
078.006 Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse,
078.007 And the mountains as pegs?
you can check it if you want here

OK. The mountains don't hold the crust of the earth together, they're usually formed as a result of seismic activity, and when you have fault lines that run through mountain ranges with a slippage of between 10 and 200mm a year, then they're really not doing a very good job of stopping the movement, are they?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

I personally find it very encouraging that the Quran contains so much sceintific data. After all, in many Islamic countries the Quran is considered the only thing worthy of serious study.

Those countries probably aren't that concerned with trying to claim that part of what Mohammed actually got was a lesson in plate tectonics and embyonic development from an angel, but his poetic heart chose to obscure it in ambiguous language until us clever clogs came along and were able to interpret it for what it really means, using our already aquired scientific knowledge as a point of comparison.

 

[Peace4all]

Here is one part of a lesson on plate tectonics that describes how subduction zones work. This is an example of what happens at most mountain ranges on or near continental coasts, such as the Andes in South America and the Rockies in North America. In these cases, the mountain range does virtually nothing to prevent plate movement.

This page in the same lesson shows types of plate movements:

- divergent plate boundaries. These are typical of mid-ocean ridges (i.e. long underwater mountain ranges). In these cases, the existence of mountains does nothing to stop or reduce the plate movement.

- convergent plate boundaries (note: oceanic-continental boundary shown). These are typical of coastal mountain ranges. In these cases, the existence of mountains also does not stop or reduce plate movement.

Also (but not shown in that lesson) are continental-continental plate boundaries, which created mountain ranges like the Himilayas in Inda/Tibet. You can find an example of these here. In 10 million years since the Himilayas formed, the India plate is still moving into the Eurasia plate without any sign of stopping or slowing, so it seems, IMO, that the tallest mountain range in the world has done little to act as a "peg" or a "stud".

Back to that lesson, this page shows a map of the worldwide distribution of earthquakes. If you check this against a map of world mountain ranges, you'll see that earthquakes tend to happen in mountainous areas.

Alrite, so im a highschooler and im taking AP Environmental Science; so im know genius, but this is what i know for sure:

You are right, mountains occur because of collision of different tectonic boundaries. We know that the weight of a mountain alone does little to maintain balance. for this dilemma, we can imagine that the crust is like a bed sheet spread out in an open field. The weight of a small pebble alone will do little to hold the sheet down, but when we talk of thousands of them lined up along the side they can hold tremendous weight.

Another point your missing is that when plates collide, each side acts in a special way depending on what kind of 'boundary' they fall into. If two plates collide and one plate slips under the other, one plate will go up and the other one will sink bellow. While it may be argued that the surface plate holds minimum impact; the miles and miles of plate that sinks below holds tremendous impact in holding the plates together. I'm I making sense?

 

[Peace4all]

OK. The mountains don't hold the crust of the earth together, they're usually formed as a result of seismic activity, and when you have fault lines that run through mountain ranges with a slippage of between 10 and 200mm a year, then they're really not doing a very good job of stopping the movement, are they?

It's physically impossible for the earth's crust to hold absolutely firm under 5100 KM of molten liquid lava in the outer core. For the slippage to be moving only about 200mm per year I say the mountains are doing a good job. It only makes sense that something must be holding the tectonic plates together, and mountains are the only logical explanation. Unless you guys can offer another explanation of how the plates are held together.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are right, mountains occur because of collision of different tectonic boundaries. We know that the weight of a mountain alone does little to maintain balance. for this dilemma, we can imagine that the crust is like a bed sheet spread out in an open field. The weight of a small pebble alone will do little to hold the sheet down, but when we talk of thousands of them lined up along the side they can hold tremendous weight.

Your analogy doesn't actually describe what's happening. Mountains are very heavy and an entire mountain range is even more so, but the forces involved in continental drift are tremendous. Despite the weight of the Himilayas, they continue to rise and the Indian plate continues to move toward the Eurasian plate.

Another point your missing is that when plates collide, each side acts in a special way depending on what kind of 'boundary' they fall into. If two plates collide and one plate slips under the other, one plate will go up and the other one will sink bellow. While it may be argued that the surface plate holds minimum impact; the miles and miles of plate that sinks below holds tremendous impact in holding the plates together. I'm I making sense?

I'm not completely sure I understand the point you're trying to make. You think that the subducted plate acts as some sort of anchor for the continental plate above it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's physically impossible for the earth's crust to hold absolutely firm under 5100 KM of molten liquid lava in the outer core. For the slippage to be moving only about 200mm per year I say the mountains are doing a good job. It only makes sense that something must be holding the tectonic plates together, and mountains are the only logical explanation. Unless you guys can offer another explanation of how the plates are held together.

Convection forces. In some places, they push plates together; in other places, they push plates apart. Mountains don't stop tectonic plates from moving.