Quranic Miracles

[Ruggedtouch]

Bismillah


salam Rugged


Well let me try to re phrase what i already re phrased. Being revealed 1400 years ago when a lot of issues were not yet know to humanity, including for instance the evolution of an embryo, it becomes quite alerting to read such a text given the fact that the book was revealed to an illiterate. I recall a young American revert telling me that when she first read the Quran, when she came to those Ayahs, all she thought was that Mohamed salla Allah a`lyhee wa sallam sort of got about 10 pregnant women, opened their wombs and was able somehow to realize those facts. Funny, isnt it? might post it on the smiling thread. :) Later on when those facts became known to humanity thru science, mistakenly people titled those points as science in Quran or discoveries. You made me think about another title. Will keep thinking Insh a Allah.


Now the next post is not for u :) so dont tell me I already read Quran.


Even if i m offering u to later on read what i m translating, I think u need to give it a try, why not? reading the quran is different from reading articles focusing on certain points.

The “Quranic Miracles” and “science in the quran” you’re hoping to propose crumble to the ground. All such verses are unforgivably vague and inaccurate and were in most cases, borrowed from earlier (mainly Greek), philosophers. The mere fact that most of the quaranic “science” is so vague as to require considerable “explanation” and "commentary" before they can even be considered as saying anything scientific at all demands that we apply a skepticism against considering them as real.



But more to the point, none of them contain any real information that was not already known centuries earlier.


The embryology verses are particular examples. For starters, they describe nothing that is "microscopic." A drop of semen (nutfah), a clot (alaqah), and a "chewed lump of meat" (mudghah) are all perfectly visible to the naked eye.


Second, the Qur'anic version of "embryology" is not significantly different from the pagan Greek version of embryology. And the Greek version is 500 years older.


Third, both the Greek and Qur'anic versions are wrong. The idea that an embryo was ever mere "nutfah" was discarded once we learned of the ovum. The embryo is never a clot. And a "chewed lump of meat" is hardly a meaningful description of anything.


And if you get the Hadith involved the errors are even worse.


BTW, "lamps in the sky", "planets as ornaments" is not science.

[Khairan]

Mountains do not stabilize the earth's crust, they invariably are the result of plate tectonics which is exactly the <i>opposite</i> of a stable crust. Mountains form where two moving plates collide and buckle-- they have no "roots" and are certainly not “pegs” as they are the crushing and upward thrusting of plates. We sense the illusion of stability because the crust moves slowly and huge sections of it are unaffected directly by the movement. The crust itself is cooled rock floating on magma. If one wants a stable crust, one doesn't live along the plate ridges, where there are our string of mountains shown globally, one lives on the plains, where there are no mountains. Allah is wrong.

You are wrong about mountains not having roots. They are not purely superficial structures. Here's more on the issue of mountains and their geological function. What's nice about this link is that they cite textbooks as well in their explanation. Anyway, as I suggested above this shouldn't turn into a debate about "Is the Qur'an a book of science?" It clearly is not. Your comment about lamps and ornaments is neither here nor there because they are obviously poetic devices. They are descriptors, rather than functional claims about the nature of the universe.
http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_25.html

[Ruggedtouch]

You are wrong about mountains not having roots. They are not purely superficial structures. Here's more on the issue of mountains and their geological function. What's nice about this link is that they cite textbooks as well in their explanation. Anyway, as I suggested above this shouldn't turn into a debate about "Is the Qur'an a book of science?" It clearly is not. Your comment about lamps and ornaments is neither here nor there because they are obviously poetic devices. They are descriptors, rather than functional claims about the nature of the universe.


http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_25.html

Mountains do not have roots. As noted previously, mountains are the result of plate tectonics, (uplift), or seismic activity.



Further, “superficial structures”? What does that even mean? What is a “non-superficial structure”?

[Khairan]

Mountains do not have roots. As noted previously, mountains are the result of plate tectonics, (uplift), or seismic activity.



Further, “superficial structures”? What does that even mean? What is a “non-superficial structure”?

i.e. one that exists only on the surface of the earth and does not have roots.
So, the link I provided explains exactly what mountain roots are and how they come about. It actually goes into a fair amount of detail for a layman in geology (which I'll wager most of us here are). If you maintain that the claims on the website (which cites textbooks and gives references) are wrong, then you'll have to explain why.


cheers

[Ruggedtouch]

i.e. one that exists only on the surface of the earth and does not have roots.


So, the link I provided explains exactly what mountain roots are and how they come about. It actually goes into a fair amount of detail for a layman in geology (which I'll wager most of us here are). If you maintain that the claims on the website (which cites textbooks and gives references) are wrong, then you'll have to explain why.


cheers

The verse states that mountains perform the function of preventing shocks in the Earth. This fact was not known by anyone at the time the Qur'an was revealed. It was, in fact, brought to light only recently, as a result of the findings of modern geological research.

The above is from the website you linked to. Please discuss for us how “mountains perform the function of preventing shocks in the Earth”.



This appears to contradict the geological record of how mountains were created.

[Khairan]

The above is from the website you linked to. Please discuss for us how “mountains perform the function of preventing shocks in the Earth”.

Can we take this to mean that you accept mountains have "roots"?

This appears to contradict the geological record of how mountains were created.

You're too hung up on this plate tectonics issue. If you look at the web page, it actually SAYS that mountains were created by upheaval of the earth when plates collide. It goes on to say that after they are created, they provide a stabilizing effect on the land.
As for your question about "shocks" -- again from the site:

...mountains extend to the surface layer joining lines on and below the surface, and nail these together. By fixing the Earth's crust they prevent any sliding over the magma layer or amongst the layers themselves. In short, mountains can be compared to nails holding strips of wood together. The fixing effect of mountains is known as isostasy in scientific literature. Isostasy is the state of equilibrium between the upward force created by the mantle layer and the downward force created by the Earth's crust. As mountains lose mass due to erosion, soil loss or melting of glaciers, they can gain mass from the formation of glaciers, volcanic explosions or soil formation. Therefore, as mountains grow lighter they are pressed upwards by the raising force implemented by the liquids. Alternatively, as they grow heavier they are pressed into the mantle by the force of gravity. Equilibrium between these two forces is established by isostasy.

[Ruggedtouch]

Can we take this to mean that you accept mountains have "roots"?


You're too hung up on this plate tectonics issue. If you look at the web page, it actually SAYS that mountains were created by upheaval of the earth when plates collide. It goes on to say that after they are created, they provide a stabilizing effect on the land.


As for your question about "shocks" -- again from the site:

So... you're supporting the notion that the eruption of volcanoes has a "stabilizing effect on the land"?



That seems odd to me.

[Ruggedtouch]

i.e. one that exists only on the surface of the earth and does not have roots.


So, the link I provided explains exactly what mountain roots are and how they come about. It actually goes into a fair amount of detail for a layman in geology (which I'll wager most of us here are). If you maintain that the claims on the website (which cites textbooks and gives references) are wrong, then you'll have to explain why.


cheers

Sorry for my ignorance but when I seek authoritative information of science, I’ll look for peer reviewed data by actual scientists, not interpretation of holy text by non-scientists.



You would do yourself a huge favor by looking here:


http://tsunami.geo.ed.ac.uk/local-bin/quak...pscript/home.pl.


You might be surprised to learn that most seismic activity takes place in the mountainous areas. Strange, eh?

[Khairan]

So... you're supporting the notion that the eruption of volcanoes has a "stabilizing effect on the land"?

That seems odd to me.

If I give 1000 people a pill of aspirin every day, as a group they will have far fewer heart attacks than 1000 people who don't take aspirin. If a few of the aspirin-eaters DO have heart attacks, that doesn't mean the aspirin isn't doing its job.
The reductio ad absurdum here that this verse must by definition be referring to EVERY single mountain and volcano everywhere doesn't really hold up. It is describing the phenomenon that the presence of mountains hampers the sliding of layers of the earth over each other. Furthermore, land with mountains is being compared to land without, so there is a suggestion of relativity here. All of this, contrary to your claims earlier in the thread, hold up in the face of what is scientifically known.


Unless you have evidence otherwise, what we have seen is that mountains DO have roots and mountains DO make the earth more stable.

[Ruggedtouch]

If I give 1000 people a pill of aspirin every day, as a group they will have far fewer heart attacks than 1000 people who don't take aspirin. If a few of the aspirin-eaters DO have heart attacks, that doesn't mean the aspirin isn't doing its job.


The reductio ad absurdum here that this verse must by definition be referring to EVERY single mountain and volcano everywhere doesn't really hold up. It is describing the phenomenon that the presence of mountains hampers the sliding of layers of the earth over each other. Furthermore, land with mountains is being compared to land without, so there is a suggestion of relativity here. All of this, contrary to your claims earlier in the thread, hold up in the face of what is scientifically known.


Unless you have evidence otherwise, what we have seen is that mountains DO have roots and mountains DO make the earth more stable.

The aspirin analogy is totally unrelated and irrelevant, but nice try.



That’s a lot of double speak that doesn’t apply. But you knew that, right?


The evidence is posted for your review and enlightenment. I’m not at all clear where we have seen that: <i>”mountains DO have roots and mountains DO make the earth more stable”.</i> other than your “Because I say so” admonition.


I’ve asked several times now – “If mountains have pegs and stabilize the earth, why do earthquakes more often than not occur along mountains, mountain ridges and areas of plate tectonics that form mountains”?