Quranic Miracles

[Khairan]

By the way, here's a nice essay discussing the function of mountain roots (the existence of which you earlier said "Allah had gotten wrong"). Guess the Qur'an does know say a thing or two about science which people 14 centuries later still commonly don't understand, eh?


http://www.geology.wisc.edu/courses/g112/mtn_roots.html

[Khairan]

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

Interesting that you admonish me of using the "because I said so" argument, while you don't really do anything more here.

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.

Hey, I've linked to a site which offers scientific information and references textbooks. If you'd like to debunk the explanations given there, by all means do so, but don't give me this disingenuous nonsense about my points being arbitrary.

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”?

I'm not convinced that they do. The site above with the seismic maps wasn't very helpful -- do you have *references* or articles that directly say that mountainous areas are MORE prone to seismic activity?

[Ruggedtouch]

By the way, here's a nice essay discussing the function of mountain roots (the existence of which you earlier said "Allah had gotten wrong") Guess the Qur'an does know say a thing or two about science which people 14 centuries later still commonly don't understand, eh?


http://www.geology.wisc.edu/courses/g112/mtn_roots.html

That's so silly. Nowhere in the posted article is there any reference to mountains as roots or pegs. The article refers to a "root model."



Your internet scouring to defend a "mountains as roots" quaranic science position is becoming hysterical.

[Khairan]

That's so silly. Nowhere in the posted article is there any reference to mountains as roots or pegs. The article refers to a "root model."



Your internet scouring to defend a "mountains as roots" quaranic science position is becoming hysterical.

Really? Because I could have SWORN you insisted mountains "didn't have roots."
From your own posts:

Mountains do not stabilize the earth's crust, they invariably are the result of plate tectonics which is exactly the opposite 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...Allah is wrong.

<b>Mountains do not have roots.</b> 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”?

And now, from the article:

<b>The most important point is that mountains have buoyant roots that extend downward into the mantle beneath a mountain range, and that the roots are, in general, about 5.6 times deeper than the height of the range.</b> This result reflects the difference between the densities of average crust and mantle.

Why are you backpedalling?

[Ruggedtouch]

Really? Because I could have SWORN you insisted mountains "didn't have roots."


Yeah, let me reiterate: you were wrong.

I'm still waiting to see your evidence of "quaranic science" that describes "mountain roots". If you find it you will post it, won't you?



You seem to think that scouring the web to find an article that refers to a "root theory" somehow supports quaranic science.

[Khairan]

I'm still waiting to see your evidence of "quaranic science" that describes "mountain roots". If you find it you will post it, won't you?

The word in question (peg, stake) in Arabic is "autaad." It means a stick that has been driven into the ground, therefore having a part above and a part below. That is where the understanding of "mountain roots" comes from. I'm not a speaker of Arabic, however, so if you want to pursue that line further I'll have to beg out and leave you to talk to one of the native speakers on here.

You seem to think that scouring the web to find an article that refers to a "root theory" somehow supports quaranic science.

If you want to claim that these sources are wrong, by all means provide evidence to the contrary. I'm sure no one here would mind learning a thing or two. So far, all you've done is insist in the vaguest of terms that "root theory" is not to be trusted.

[Ruggedtouch]

The word in question (peg, stake) in Arabic is "autaad." It means a stick that has been driven into the ground, therefore having a part above and a part below. That is where the understanding of "mountain roots" comes from. I'm not a speaker of Arabic, however, so if you want to pursue that line further I'll have to beg out and leave you to talk to one of the native speakers on here.

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main///Res...chap12.htm

"Pegs" for what? Also, Pickthall translates this term as "bulwarks" while Shakir translates it as "projections". In any case, what scientific fact can be derived from this passage?

If you want to claim that these sources are wrong, by all means provide evidence to the contrary. I'm sure no one here would mind learning a thing or two. So far, all you've done is insist in the vaguest of terms that "root theory" is not to be trusted.

You are certainly welcome to play fast and loose with interpretation all you wish. I note that you now refer to pegs rather than roots. It seems to me that if you’re going to allow yourself varying interpretations, you allow yourself the ability to justify anything you want.



I’m still unclear as to how quaranic science claims that mountains (with roots/pegs), stabilizes the earth when earthquakes and volcanoes invariably occur along these fault/uplift lines. I've asked this question repeatedly with no answer. It still seems odd to me.

[Khairan]

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main///Res...chap12.htm






You are certainly welcome to play fast and loose with interpretation all you wish. I note that you now refer to pegs rather than roots. It seems to me that if you’re going to allow yourself varying interpretations, you allow yourself the ability to justify anything you want.

Huh? You were happily "debunking" the idea of mountains having roots before, and now that we've shown you they do you're denying that it's a valid translation? Like I said -- I'm not going to get into arguments over the meanings of Arabic words with you. If you want to discuss that you'll have to hit up one of the other members here.

I’m still unclear as to how quaranic science claims that mountains (with roots/pegs), stabilizes the earth when earthquakes and volcanoes invariably occur along these fault/uplift lines. I've asked this question repeatedly with no answer. It still seems odd to me.

I've provided a site that explains how mountains stabilize the earth. You haven't addressed the specific claims other than to suggest that the information on the site is wrong. Fair enough -- let us entertain the idea that the site is not accurate. Do you have information countering it?

[Ruggedtouch]

Huh? You were happily "debunking" the idea of mountains having roots before, and now that we've shown you they do you're denying that it's a valid translation? Like I said -- I'm not going to get into arguments over the meanings of Arabic words with you. If you want to discuss that you'll have to hit up one of the other members here.

Where have "we" shown anyone that mountains have roots? You cut and pasted a link to a website. Super!.


You're attempting to prove a scientific miracle in the quran by playing fast and loose with interpretations. From your prior post:
<i></i>"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."


I suppose you are tasked with defining which descriptions of quaranic science are "descriptors" and which are not.

I've provided a site that explains how mountains stabilize the earth. You haven't addressed the specific claims other than to suggest that the information on the site is wrong. Fair enough -- let us entertain the idea that the site is not accurate. Do you have information countering it?

You cut and pasted from http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_25.html, a site, a front for an Islamic propoganda website.



Here's the comment again, and it remains fully unanswered:


"Mountains do not stabilize the earth's crust, they invariably are the result of plate tectonics which is exactly the opposite 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. .

[Khairan]

Where have "we" shown anyone that mountains have roots? You cut and pasted a link to a website. Super!.

It's a lot more than you've done. So far, you seem to be demanding an awful lot of evidence and offering precious little of your own.

You're attempting to prove a scientific miracle in the quran by playing fast and loose with interpretations. From your prior post:
<i></i>"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."
I suppose you are tasked with defining which descriptions of quaranic science are "descriptors" and which are not.

You're right -- and as one of my early posts in this thread noted, Muslims run into problems for this very reason. The Qur'an is not a book of science, and although it is obvious that certain things are being described poetically while others are not, it certainly does create a bit of a ruckus when we attempt to sort the two. You'll get no argument from me there that at the least it can *appear* to be dishonest when Muslims try to do so. That's why I hate these debates.

You cut and pasted from http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_25.html, a site, a front for an Islamic propoganda website.

Here's the comment again, and it remains fully unanswered:


"Mountains do not stabilize the earth's crust, they invariably are the result of plate tectonics which is exactly the opposite 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".

I don't know why you keep insisting that it's unanswered. The site very specifically addresses your claims.
1. You are wrong that mountains have no roots.


2. It is not news that mountains are formed by plate tectonics. The site explains this, and it is not problematic.


3. The site describes how a presence of a mountain stabilizes plates.


You have at no point addressed any of these claims. All you have done is say that the site is wrong. Now that leaves the question: Can you back it up?